The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

HornetSaver

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

A very good post, but why the need to wait for the next election?
A vote was held by the MSPs with a result for IndyRef2

My view is not that different to Sturgeon's stated view after the 2015 general election.

The ambition of nationalists shouldn't be to hold a referendum at the earliest opportunity. The ambition should be to be to hold it when Yes can be considered to be in a stronger position than in 2014. That might be the case right now, but apart from the anecdotal there's little substantial evidence for it (according to the polls Ed Miliband should be Prime Minister of a UK at the heart of the EU right now). A Holyrood election held and won explicitly on the pledge to hold a referendum in the following parliament would serve as that evidence (rather than an "if X happens, we'll do Y with a view to figuring out the feasibility of reaching our long held dream of Z").

Make no mistake, I completely understand why the SNP are taking the political stance they are - they're trying to see if they can force Theresa May into bowing to their will, and the event that they can't they're trying to paint her as acting against the wishes of Scottish democracy.

All smart stuff, and given what the Prime Minister has done in calling this general election at this time they can't be said to be any more guiltly of political game playing than the Conservatives are. But it doesn't change the fact that what Salmond said in 2012 about the desirability of holding a referendum in accordance with UK law, what Sturgeon said in 2015 about wanting to ensure that the mood has swung further towards independence before calling a referendum, and what May has said this year about public consent being necessary for a second referendum to be worthwhile, are all consistent and are all points that will serve the nationalist cause well if adhered to.

Much like Brexit, there is not an absolute majority for either outcome. Much like Brexit, there are individual elements to the union which might flip people from No to Yes, regardless of whether their views might otherwise have been the same as 2015 if looking at the whole picture. And much like Brexit, a successful result from the nationalist perspective depends on the referendum being held at an optimal time. The public consent test of winning a Holyrood election on the explicit pledge to hold a referendum strikes me as the optimum time, and it's for the SNP and Greens to decide how long the current parliament should last.

elantan

Would that be like the pledge to hold a referendum in certain circumstances , like Scotland being taken out of the EU against their will

Say something like ohhhhh 62% of the country voting to remain ?

HornetSaver

elantan wrote: »

Would that be like the pledge to hold a referendum in certain circumstances , like Scotland being taken out of the EU against their will

Say something like ohhhhh 62% of the country voting to remain ?

There was no such pledge. The manifesto was very carefully worded so as to give them the right to push for it without making an explict pledge that there would be one. As opposed to 2011 where what was on the table was explicit - if there was a nationalist majority, a referendum must be held.

The thing that most nationalists fail to realise is that if a second referendum is held and lost, or held regardless of outcome without going through due process, they're stuffed. They need to repeat the course of 2011, by making it untenable for Westminster to refuse to grant a referendum, and by ensuring that there's an explicit electoral mandate for it in the Scottish parliament, by making a pledge as explicit and unambiguous as in 2011.

The current pressure on Theresa May is part and parcel of that, as putting her in the position of granting a referendum despite the absence of an explicit pledge, or refusing one and being portrayed as denying democracy, should strengthen the nationalist cause either way.

But the one way the nationalists lose is to hold an unrecognised referendum prior to making the next Holyrood election explicitly about independence. Should nationalists win such an election and Westminster still refuse to go along with Indyref2, then clearly a unilateral referendum would be appropriate and necessary. But we're not there yet and the SNP actually seem determined to avoid going down that route.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Imo ? Sometime soon after 8th June the Scottish Parliament will say we need an official answer by x date. If there's no answer we're going to court/putting plans in place for a referendum/election in Feb 2019.
...

Hey, sounds a plan Shakey.

I reckon May will give it the cold shoulder treatment, and point to a big majority and increased seats in Scotland.

But...let's see

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is no proportional representation in the GE.
It's a FPTP system.
So it is about seats, not about vote share.

A constituent part of the result on the day is the cumulative number of votes each party receives. You know... when they announce the numbers, it's not to difficult to add it all together. I believe the BBC usually help out with that.

In Scotland, on June 8th, it's about both.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

A constituent part of the result on the day is the cumulative number of votes each party receives. You know... when they announce the numbers, it's not to difficult to add it all together. I believe the BBC usually help out with that.

I agree that they need to count the votes in order to ascertain the constituent winner.
Once that's finalised, the vote count is irrelevant.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

In Scotland, on June 8th, it's about both.

Interesting.
Can you point to the legislation that defines the General Election is handled differently from the rest of the UK?

Your making things up to try and concoct a scenario that suits your needs and ignoring the wider aspects of ALL the manifesto points in which the electorate is voting on.

elantan

kabayiri wrote: »

Hey, sounds a plan Shakey.

I reckon May will give it the cold shoulder treatment, and point to a big majority and increased seats in Scotland.

But...let's see

I think you are right .. she will ... that won't stop Sturgeon sorting this out one way or another

Shaka_Zulu

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I agree that they need to count the votes in order to ascertain the constituent winner.
Once that's finalised, the vote count is irrelevant.

The Nats are seriously shi**ing themselves.

Not so long ago it was the will of the Scottish people

Recently it has become the will of the Scottish Parliament

Now it is the will of the SNP (+ the sycophantic Greens)

After the 8th June it will be the will of God no doubt, because they will need divine intervention.

(most of the nats on here won't be able to read this because they have blocked me......lalalala fingers in ears syndrome.

I do however take my hat off to Shakey who at least stands up and fights her corner. Thank you Shakey.)

IveSeenTheLight

It is very refreshing to read a post of this high standard.
I've included my comments to your post below

HornetSaver wrote: »

My view is not that different to Sturgeon's stated view after the 2015 general election.
That's fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I guess Nicola Sturgeons (and many of the electorate) is that there has been a significant change which directly impacts Scotland and is against the apparent will of the Scottish Electorate as confirmed by the 2016 Brexit referendum.
The First Minister would not be doing her job if it were not to try and protect the interests of the people in Scotland

The ambition of nationalists shouldn't be to hold a referendum at the earliest opportunity. The ambition should be to be to hold it when Yes can be considered to be in a stronger position than in 2014. That might be the case right now,I'm confident that had there not been a significant change in circumstances then we would not be having these discussions this early. You considered that it might be the case right now, so why not progress now as voted for in Holyrood and ask the electorate if they agree that the significant change is sufficient to change the preference from 2014. but apart from the anecdotal there's little substantial evidence for it (according to the polls Ed Miliband should be Prime Minister of a UK at the heart of the EU right now). How do you propose that the evidence is obtained? Your citing that polls cannot be trustedA Holyrood election held and won explicitly on the pledge to hold a referendum in the following parliament would serve as that evidence (rather than an "if X happens, we'll do Y with a view to figuring out the feasibility of reaching our long held dream of Z"). It was in their manifesto and delay in acting could be to the detriment of the Scottish electorate.

1. It was in the SNP manifesto
2. It was discussed numerous times pre brexit the implications of a result which was not the consensus across all the countries of the United Kingdom
3. It was democratically presented for and successfully carried by vote in the Holyrood parliament

These are sufficient in my opinion to respect the democratic mandate to sanction section 30

Make no mistake, I completely understand why the SNP are taking the political stance they are - they're trying to see if they can force Theresa May into bowing to their will, and the event that they can't they're trying to paint her as acting against the wishes of Scottish democracy.
As alluded to earlier, there is no point in having IndyRef2 if there was not a belief that the result would be different to 2014.

All smart stuff, and given what the Prime Minister has done in calling this general election at this time they can't be said to be any more guiltly of political game playing than the Conservatives are. But it doesn't change the fact that what Salmond said in 2012 about the desirability of holding a referendum in accordance with UK law, what Sturgeon said in 2015 about wanting to ensure that the mood has swung further towards independence before calling a referendum, and what May has said this year about public consent being necessary for a second referendum to be worthwhile, are all consistent and are all points that will serve the nationalist cause well if adhered to.
All valid points and I'm sure they would have been adhered to if there was not the significant impact change caused by the 2016 Brexit referendum.
This moved the goalposts and as such, the change in position from 2012, 2014 & 2015.

Much like Brexit, there is not an absolute majority for either outcome. Much like Brexit, there are individual elements to the union which might flip people from No to Yes, regardless of whether their views might otherwise have been the same as 2015 if looking at the whole picture. And much like Brexit, a successful result from the nationalist perspective depends on the referendum being held at an optimal time. The public consent test of winning a Holyrood election on the explicit pledge to hold a referendum strikes me as the optimum time, and it's for the SNP and Greens to decide how long the current parliament should last.

An understandable position, but your essentially saying that the public should vote again to determine a mandate for parties that include it in their manifesto (SNP already had this).
Then presumably another repeated vote in Holyrood on section 30.
Then for a specific vote on Independence

I don't see the requirement for 3 votes and the question can be captured in the IndyRef2 vote

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's not about Conservative seats.

It's about vote share.

Since when have you gone from getting a section 30 and subsequently a referendum to not getting it all anyway?

The result on June 8th will determine if the request is denied on grounds that the electorate just doesn't support pro-independence parties or if it is delayed, denied or granted just because Westminster say so.

Given that Sturgeon put her name, i.e. signed a document, with a Chinese investment firm thinking she was getting £10bn worth of investment into Scotland, I find it hard to believe that she's planned for all possible permutations as you keep suggesting. I don't think she's as sharp as you give her credit for at all. On the other hand, someone in the Conservative party is. It doesn't matter that TM had to row back on her no election statements, they can deal a hammer blow to Labour and put a stop to the Scottish nationalists in one fell swoop.

The request is going to be denied no matter what. There's no point you suggesting otherwise. All this vote share nonsense is just political cover for something which was always ( not ) going to happen.

I've debated with you over the various possibilities of getting a section 30, not getting a section 30, referendums, elections, legal and court proceedings. We've done them all and I've enjoyed debating them through with you. However, it's always been my opinion that the only way May will grant one is through huge political pressure coming from elsewhere or if she absolutely had to in order to save face in the event a vote is going to happen anyway either via courts or Sturgeon dissolving Holyrood.

June 8th is irrelevant.