The Dirty Independence Question

[mcshed]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

Any attempt to change that will look very much like an attempt to thwart independence.

Ideally we'd have some sort of constitutional convention over this at a time when Brexit, Independence, etc weren't live issues so that the arguments were non partisan. Perhaps Cameron should have thought about this before embarking on his reckless spree of washing his hands of issues by referenda.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Well, this is demonstrably true. However those who argue that there is no mandate because pro indy parties got less than 50% of the vote are on shaky ground on two counts.

1: that only works if you pick the constituency vote. It doesn't work if you use the list vote.

2: by that logic no government has had a mandate to do anything for 70 years.

Neil's argument that there can be no mandate because it falls outwith holyrood's competence has more logic but leaves the UK looking like it is holding Scotland hostage against its will which is not a great look and is likely to exacerbate the problem.

I see no way to resolve Scotland's constitutional stalemate other than by having a second referendum.

Having a first minister who respects Scotlands constitutional position would help. Having a first minister who feels able to make it up for themselves only ensures theyll make up some self serving idiodcy to suit themselves and not scotland. 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Having a first minister who respects Scotlands constitutional position would help. Having a first minister who feels able to make it up for themselves only ensures theyll make up some self serving idiodcy to suit themselves and not scotland. 

Just out of curiosity Neil, lets just imagine for a minute that you are Nicola Sturgeon. You've just won an election which, not only your party, but also the main opposition party, said was about whether Scotland should have a second indyref. You have a parliament with a clear majority in favour of this. What do you do?

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, LJS said:

Just out of curiosity Neil, lets just imagine for a minute that you are Nicola Sturgeon. You've just won an election which, not only your party, but also the main opposition party, said was about whether Scotland should have a second indyref. You have a parliament with a clear majority in favour of this. What do you do?

What the opposition did was driven by sturgeons stance she can't blame where we are on others. She should have accepted her authority comes from the same law which says shehas no right to an Indyref.

[LJS]

Just now, eFestivals said:

What the opposition did was driven by sturgeons stance she can't blame where we are on others. She should have accepted her authority comes from the same law which says shehas no right to an Indyref.

You haven't answered my question. Put yourself in her shoes - what do you do?

[eFestivals]

Just now, eFestivals said:

 should have accepted her authority comes from the same place that says she no right to an infyref

Therefore logically she cannot have a valid mandate.

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Therefore logically she cannot have a valid mandate.

Do you think continually refusing a referendum will make the problem go away?

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Do you think continually refusing a referendum will make the problem go away?

No who is suggesting it's refused apart from sturgeon who is trying to ramp up grievances she plays the victim better than the whole of Liverpool.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Do you think continually refusing a referendum will make the problem go away?

Her being honest about the consequences of Indy will make the problem go away it's not going to be the panacea that indyists pretend it will be Scotland's problems originate from within Scotland, they don't come from Westminster.

[LJS]

 

 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

 

One woman cannot overturn the decision of an electorate or pretend it didn't happen. The people of Scotland voted the devolution settlement into being including with its restriction on the constitutional question. It's only democracy when it's a Scottish vote she agrees with. Just like the UK cannot vote a UK decision in sturgeon's eyes and she said a Scottish vote in the EU ref should carry ten times the weight of an English vote.  So much for civic nationalism nationalism is nasty when it's defined by hatred of an enemy as it is for sturgeon and most other indyists.youbhad that chance in 2024 and sturgeon didn't accept how Scotland voted.

Edited May 10, 2021 by eFestivals

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

One woman cannot overturn the decision of an electorate or pretend it didn't happen.

she's not trying to - you are getting her confused with Johnson

Quote

The people of Scotland voted the devolution settlement into being including with its restriction on the constitutional question.

I don't remember being given a choice on that. the only "detail" we were allowed a choice on was whether the Scottish Government should have tax raising powers.

Quote

It's only democracy when it's a Scottish vote she agrees with.

Sturgeon is accountable to the voters of Scotland - if she believes a democratic decision made by the UK as a whole is against Scotland's interests and the voters agree - it is her job to pursue the matter.

Quote

Just like the UK cannot vote a UK decision in sturgeon's eyes and she said a Scottish vote in the EU ref should carry ten times the weight of an English vote. 

No she didn't. She suggested that the fact that the voters of Scotland had taken a very different view from the voters of England & Wales should be respected and in the aftermath of the EU referendum she wasn't alone...

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,ruth-davidson-westminster-must-not-block-a-second-independence-referendum_12002.htm

Pleas from all sides of Scottish politics fell on deaf ears and of course Davidson et al quickly retreated back into their Unionist bunker. Perhaps, if the UK government had tried to find some kind of consensus, they might not find themselves faced with a Scottish Government bolstered by clear support for a second Independence referendum.

Quote

So much for civic nationalism nationalism is nasty when it's defined by hatred of an enemy as it is for sturgeon and most other indyists.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Matthew ch7 v5

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by LJS

[LJS]

What amuses me most Neil, is that during the last Parliamentary term you used all sorts of nonsense to try and claim the there wasn't really a mandate for Indyref2. 

I can't for the life of me imagine why you bothered when, it now appears any so called mandate is totally useless.

There are clearly no circumstances under which you will concede that we should be allowed a second vote.

 

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

 

 

I don't think it's that simple. There are financial costs to holding a referendum, it may be considered that money is better spent elsewhere. There are also significant time costs and again could be argued there is better use of that time for the whole of the country.

[mcshed]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

What amuses me most Neil, is that during the last Parliamentary term you used all sorts of nonsense to try and claim the there wasn't really a mandate for Indyref2. 

I can't for the life of me imagine why you bothered when, it now appears any so called mandate is totally useless.

There are clearly no circumstances under which you will concede that we should be allowed a second vote.

 

Nicola certainly has a mandate to attempt to pursue a referendum, Boris has a mandate to refuse one. Nicola clearly stated she wouldn't try a wildcat referendum so now it is her job to try and negotiate one out of Boris.

You've pointed out that we are at something of a constitutional roadblock, you say the only way out is a referendum and you assure us that a second defeat will allow everyone to move on. I'm not so sure if the result was closer than last time then their would be clear evidence of things moving in favour of Independence and there would be almost 50% of the electorate fired up and angry about having just lost a vote. If another referendum is to be had it needs to be after some kind of constitutional convention setting out the rules going forward otherwise we'll be having referenda over and over again, if losing a vote means try again in 10 years but winning means irreversible change do you not see how these referenda aren't a fair democratic way of doing things? 

Given Nicola has a mandate to ask for a referendum what strings would you consider it fair Boris adding to it to acquiesce to it? Required supermajority? Neutral question? No more referenda for a defined time period? Referenda after the terms had been negotiated? Confirmatory 2nd referendum? Votes for rUK based Scots? 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

she's not trying to

She is she's rejecting the terms of the devolution settlement which Scotland voted to accept.

 

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

 

you are getting her confused with Johnson

He has the law on his side andthevote of the Scottish people about devolution.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

 

 

 

 

 

I don't remember being given a choice on that. the only "detail" we were allowed a choice on was whether the Scottish Government should have tax raising powers.

It was clear that it didn't permit succession.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Sturgeon is accountable to the voters of Scotland - if she believes a democratic decision made by the UK as a whole is against Scotland's interests and the voters agree - it is her job to pursue the matter.

 

It's her job to pursue more power for herself.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

No she didn't. She suggested that the fact that the voters of Scotland had taken a very different view from the voters of England & Wales should be respected and in the aftermath of the EU referendum she wasn't alone...

 

She suggested that the vote if Scotland should be the deciding factor for the we hole of the UK.

 

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,ruth-davidson-westminster-must-not-block-a-second-independence-referendum_12002.htm

So now your saying Simone without a public mandate has a meaningful say on the issue.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Pleas from all sides of Scottish politics fell on deaf ears and of course Davidson et al quickly retreated back into their Unionist bunker. Perhaps, if the UK government had tried to find some kind of consensus

 

There's no concensus to be had with someone who rejects the right of one part to have a view on or meaningful vote.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

 

 

, they might not find themselves faced with a Scottish Government bolstered by clear support for a second Independence referendum.

Spaffer should grant the ref and try and find someway to tie the SNP is not no bullshit.no bullshit when campaign ing and no bullshit about once in a generation.

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Matthew ch7 v5

 

I'm not advocating nationalism or believing it's the answer to any problems. You reject the idea of a partnership of equals but can't show me where English nationalism has overruled a Scottish nationalastic view.

[pink_triangle]

6 hours ago, mcshed said:

 

Given Nicola has a mandate to ask for a referendum what strings would you consider it fair Boris adding to it to acquiesce to it? Required supermajority? Neutral question? No more referenda for a defined time period? Referenda after the terms had been negotiated? Confirmatory 2nd referendum? Votes for rUK based Scots? 

In a tight election it could come down to the wording of the question. In my view the SNP should not be allowed to pick the wording.

 

[mcshed]

47 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

In a tight election it could come down to the wording of the question. In my view the SNP should not be allowed to pick the wording.

 

Leave/Remain seem neutral. If Farage can win on those terms, can't Nicola. Second Brexit.

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

In a tight election it could come down to the wording of the question. In my view the SNP should not be allowed to pick the wording.

 

The Scottish government has agreed to change the wording of its independence referendum question, after concerns it may lead people to vote 'Yes'.

SNP ministers wanted to ask voters the yes/no question: "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" in autumn 2014.

The wording of the question will now be altered to: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

The change was suggested by the Electoral Commission watchdog.

"Scottish independence: SNP accepts call to change referendum question - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21245701.amp

[pink_triangle]

50 minutes ago, LJS said:

The Scottish government has agreed to change the wording of its independence referendum question, after concerns it may lead people to vote 'Yes'.

SNP ministers wanted to ask voters the yes/no question: "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" in autumn 2014.

The wording of the question will now be altered to: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

The change was suggested by the Electoral Commission watchdog.

"Scottish independence: SNP accepts call to change referendum question - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21245701.amp

Why can't they ask should Scotland remain part of the UK?

[LJS]

11 hours ago, mcshed said:

Nicola certainly has a mandate to attempt to pursue a referendum, Boris has a mandate to refuse one. Nicola clearly stated she wouldn't try a wildcat referendum so now it is her job to try and negotiate one out of Boris.

Not necessarily. There are different opinions on what the Scottish Government can & can't legally do. I think there is broad (although not universal)  agreement that it can't hold a legally binding referendum but there are other options which she will effectively have no choice but to explore if Johnson says No.

Quote

You've pointed out that we are at something of a constitutional roadblock, you say the only way out is a referendum and you assure us that a second defeat will allow everyone to move on. I'm not so sure if the result was closer than last time then their would be clear evidence of things moving in favour of Independence and there would be almost 50% of the electorate fired up and angry about having just lost a vote.

You may be right. I just don't think there will be the energy to pursue the issue if the a second referendum goes the way of the Union. Quebec has 2 referendums - the second was very close and the issue was effectively put to bed for, how would one put it? ... a generation perhaps? I don't think we would be seriously discussing Indyref 2 if it hadn't been for the Brexit debacle. 

Quote

If another referendum is to be had it needs to be after some kind of constitutional convention setting out the rules going forward otherwise we'll be having referenda over and over again, if losing a vote means try again in 10 years but winning means irreversible change do you not see how these referenda aren't a fair democratic way of doing things? 

I don't see an issue with some sort of agreement on the length of time until another referendum can be held. There would probably need to be some allowance for unforeseen events - but you could for example say - 20 years unless there is 2 thirds majority in Holyrood for a further vote. ( I'm only picking numbers out of the air here - to demonstrate a principle not suggesting that these are necessarily the ones to go for)

Quote

Given Nicola has a mandate to ask for a referendum what strings would you consider it fair Boris adding to it to acquiesce to it? Required supermajority?

I'm sure even you can see the problems with saying e.g. you need 60 % in favour in a referendum  largely brought about because the UK voted 52-48 for Brexit with over 60% of Scots opposing it. 

Quote

Neutral question?

as I have already demonstrated, the question last time was approved by the electoral commission who rejected the SNP's initial proposal. In an independence referendum asking people if they want to become independent  seems pretty reasonable. There was an argument that campaigning for Yes rather than No made the pro- indy side  seem more positive & up beat (which, let's face it, we were) 

personally, i would have no objection to a choice like ... Scotland should..

a: stay in the UK (ruled for ever by the evil Tories)

 

b: become an independent country (with free Irn Bru & whisky [not together!!!![ for life)

 

seems fair to me

 

Quote

No more referenda for a defined time period?

covered that

Quote

Referenda after the terms had been negotiated? Confirmatory 2nd referendum?

Again this would be the man who point blank refused a confirmatory 2nd vote on Brexit telling us we must have one for Scexit. It just looks like yet another obstacle being put in the way.

Quote

Votes for rUK based Scots? 

Nah.  My brother has lived in England for 52 years - has no intention of coming "home" - Why should he have a say in how Scotland is run? My Italian colleague at work who has settled in this country and is bringing up two kids here with her Italian husband has far more right to a vote in my view.

And why just rUK based Scots? what about the ones in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA etc etc. What about my Canadian cousins whose mother was Scottish - would they count?

However you work it, there are bound to be anomalies. People working abroad for a reasonably short time who are denied a vote while "foreigners" living here temporarily get one, but the general principle that the people living & working & paying taxes and bringing up families in Scotland are the ones who get the vote is absolutely 100% correct in my view.

Edited May 11, 2021 by LJS

[LJS]

 They used to say we would be abandoning the Northern English working class if we went for independence.

 

I think that argument can be crossed off the list.

[eFestivals]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Why can't they ask should Scotland remain part of the UK?

Why can't they ask if the generation with fucked up  by the SNP education wants the rest of their life chances fucked up too. To make it clear what they would be choosing. 

[LJS]

47 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Why can't they ask if the generation with fucked up  by the SNP education wants the rest of their life chances fucked up too. To make it clear what they would be choosing. 

or they could ask "would you like to live in a country that disenfranchises the poor?"

[mcshed]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Not necessarily. There are different opinions on what the Scottish Government can & can't legally do. I think there is broad (although not universal)  agreement that it can't hold a legally binding referendum but there are other options which she will effectively have no choice but to explore if Johnson says No.

Maybe we can hold a referendum on whether we want a referendum?

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't think we would be seriously discussing Indyref 2 if it hadn't been for the Brexit debacle

Really? The 45 and Are You Yes Yet and so on predate Brexit, as did the Yellow tsunami in 2015, Indyref 2 has been on the agenda since 2014, Brexit has certainly helped with legitimacy but you are kidding yourself if you think it's the reason we're having this debate.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't see an issue with some sort of agreement on the length of time until another referendum can be held. There would probably need to be some allowance for unforeseen events - but you could for example say - 20 years unless there is 2 thirds majority in Holyrood for a further vote. ( I'm only picking numbers out of the air here - to demonstrate a principle not suggesting that these are necessarily the ones to go for)

Obviously any legislation could be unpicked by future governments but the doing so would show the electorate the bad faith on the terms of the event. Or it might be a necessary escape valve for when PM Patel decides to militarise the entire coastline.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

as I have already demonstrated, the question last time was approved by the electoral commission who rejected the SNP's initial proposal. In an independence referendum asking people if they want to become independent  seems pretty reasonable. There was an argument that campaigning for Yes rather than No made the pro- indy side  seem more positive & up beat (which, let's face it, we were) 

personally, i would have no objection to a choice like ... Scotland should..

a: stay in the UK (ruled for ever by the evil Tories)

 

b: become an independent country (with free Irn Bru & whisky [not together!!!![ for life)

 

seems fair to me

So last the Electoral Commission decided the leading nature of the original question was beyond the pale but by 2016 they saw that a more neutral question is even better.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/01/eu-referendums-reworded-question-welcomed-by-experts-and-campaigners

Although Leave/Remain certainly is neutral wording I do think there is a risk that it's too closely linked to Brexit in the public imagination. How about?

Become an independent nation.

Remain part of the United Kingdom.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I'm sure even you can see the problems with saying e.g. you need 60 % in favour in a referendum  largely brought about because the UK voted 52-48 for Brexit with over 60% of Scots opposing it. 

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Again this would be the man who point blank refused a confirmatory 2nd vote on Brexit telling us we must have one for Scexit. It just looks like yet another obstacle being put in the way.

I think it is possible to argue that Scexit is a more fundamental change to the nature of society then Brexit and therefore requires more careful consideration. There is the fact that the EU has a reentry mechanism but the UK does not.

There is also the fact that this is already a second referendum, part of the logic of one off referenda being a simple majority is that the unique nature of such events forces the electorate to weigh the options more heavily as they are coming to a final result. This is demonstrably not a one off event it's IndyRef2 a victory for Leave/Yes/Independence only shows fluctuating opinion over the last decade not necessarily the settled will, a supermajority or consecutive victories would regain some of that authority.

So this situation is materially different from Brexit but even if it weren't, "those boys did it first" is poor argument for bad behaviour from a school child let alone from the local government. There is a lot wrong with how Brexit was conducted and that should not be a model for how Scotland behaves.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Nah.  My brother has lived in England for 52 years - has no intention of coming "home" - Why should he have a say in how Scotland is run? My Italian colleague at work who has settled in this country and is bringing up two kids here with her Italian husband has far more right to a vote in my view.

And why just rUK based Scots? what about the ones in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA etc etc. What about my Canadian cousins whose mother was Scottish - would they count?

However you work it, there are bound to be anomalies. People working abroad for a reasonably short time who are denied a vote while "foreigners" living here temporarily get one, but the general principle that the people living & working & paying taxes and bringing up families in Scotland are the ones who get the vote is absolutely 100% correct in my view.

I would say anyone who is eligible for automatic Indy Scottish nationality(presumably they need to be currently British nationals for this to be automatic) should be eligible for the vote as it clearly effects them. So yes that includes Scots beyond rUK, I also agree that those living and working here should get the vote regardless of nationality or settled status. I suspect rUK based Scots would be easier to arrange than the rest of the world but I'm not opposed to any Scot having a vote. There is also the fact that moving to England isn't emigrating it is moving within the same country it seems very unfair to disenfranchise anyone for a decision they didn't know they were making.

Would your brother vote? If after 52 years he feels he has no connection then surely he wouldn't care or does he still after this time hold on to his roots and therefore deserve a vote?