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

.string.

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 ?

No not 62% of the "country", more like 40% of the electorate.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'm making up nothing, and you're getting all feisty about it because you know it's true.

I'm not feisty at all.
Quite calm and collected

[QUOTE=TrickyTree83;72571457
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

What's the 2nd graph? I'm sure you can read its title.
[/QUOTE]

Its an interesting graph that shows a change in vote share from a previous period.

Its interesting but at the same time irrelevant once the seats are won.

Of course, if there is no legislation (as I presume you know there isn't), then that refutes your nonsense about Vote share being relevant.
I reiterate, at a GE, its a FPTP system

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The government just need real evidence that independence does not have the support that protagonists (you + others) claim they have in order to say either "not now, when we say" or an outright "no".

Hmmmm, real evidence you say.
The conservative vague inclusion of public consent in their manifesto is so wishy washy that their MP's could not define specifically what constitutes the requiremens of that public consent.

What you are inferring is that they wish to ignore the democratically position of Holyrood after voting for section 30.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Then when you complain, they'll point to the vote share for the unionist parties versus the vote share for the pro-indy parties. And you'll be in a bind because it's true, evidence based decision making.

You can keep repeating it time and again, but the fact is that the GE is not a single position vote for Independence or not.

Your desperate position on vote share is therefore irrelevant.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Using the GE results in this manner only appears to me to be playing the SNP at their own game when they attempted to usurp the 2014 referendum result in a manifesto. And now you, Shakey, et al are complaining at me like billy-o. I guess it gets your goat and you know the outcome already as most on here do.

Not at all.
A democratic process was followed.
A section 30 request was presented.
We once again wait for a procrastinating government to respond in a definitive way.

If anyone is scared of an outcome, its clearly the unionists.

If they were in anyway confident of the outcome, the agreement to section 30 would have been defined considering the Brexit negotiations

They clearly realise that their position in 2014 can no longer be defended / used to scaremonger and they have a real concern they would lose the Referendum.

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

No not 62% of the "country", more like 40% of the electorate.

You can play with statistics all you like, but if the same logic was applied, no governments would be formed as the percentage of the electorate voting for any one part would always be the minority.

The electorate have a right to vote and should they chose not to, they accept the position of those who did vote.

You cannot in hindsight attempt to lump non voters in any one side of the share of votes.

There is corruption in politics and this clearly is a corrupted attempt to articulate an false argument from a failing position.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not feisty at all.
Quite calm and collected



Its an interesting graph that shows a change in vote share from a previous period.

Its interesting but at the same time irrelevant once the seats are won.

Of course, if there is no legislation (as I presume you know there isn't), then that refutes your nonsense about Vote share being relevant.
I reiterate, at a GE, its a FPTP system




Hmmmm, real evidence you say.
The conservative vague inclusion of public consent in their manifesto is so wishy washy that their MP's could not define specifically what constitutes the requiremens of that public consent.

What you are inferring is that they wish to ignore the democratically position of Holyrood after voting for section 30.



You can keep repeating it time and again, but the fact is that the GE is not a single position vote for Independence or not.

Your desperate position on vote share is therefore irrelevant.



Not at all.
A democratic process was followed.
A section 30 request was presented.
We once again wait for a procrastinating government to respond in a definitive way.

If anyone is scared of an outcome, its clearly the unionists.

If they were in anyway confident of the outcome, the agreement to section 30 would have been defined considering the Brexit negotiations

They clearly realise that their position in 2014 can no longer be defended / used to scaremonger and they have a real concern they would lose the Referendum.

The FPTP, the seats, the section 30, Holyrood won't matter regarding the independence question, the vote share will. Democracies can change their opinions as nationalists keep reminding us.

The vote share will be an official statistic, verified, observed by the authorities, immeasurably better than polling, which will be used to demonstrate the appetite for independence in Scotland.

My position on vote share is not desperate, it's just an observation of reality, the obstinate denial of the reality of June 8th for the Scottish independence question for me speaks to the fragile nature of the pro-independence psyche at the moment.

HornetSaver

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What if by March 2019 polls are showing 55% support for independence and 60% want an indy ref ?

Then that would be a good time to call a Holyrood election with a pledge for a snap referendum. Whatever one's political views on Brexit (I supported Remain and while I accept that it's a done deal continue to see the idea as a car crash), the Tories did in fairness show that a snap referendum on such a big issue could be called, legislated for and conducted relatively quickly.

May's now is not the time is something we all agree on. But we're under no illusions that now is not the time will be translated into 'not ever' if the Scottish Govt simply sit back and allow May her way on this unopposed.

Shaky, I remember about a year or so ago (before June 23rd) we were debating the likely timings of a referendum, and I put it that a referendum in 2021 with independence in 2022 was the earliest plausible timeframe. I think Brexit makes that even more of a likely and mutually beneficial timeframe.

Assuming that support for independence does not drop below 2014 levels - and I have no reason whatsoever to think or imply that it will - then in my opinion unionists and nationalists actually have something in common over the timing of a referendum. Unionists want the next referendum to be decisive regardless of which way the vote goes (albeit with a strong preference for a No vote), and nationalists want it held at the time most likely to yield a Yes result. Therefore for me, autumn 2021 seems the perfect time. It should be the time at which the results of Brexit, if negative, will be starting to be or already have been quite keenly felt. It's therefore the time at which the risk of leaving the UK will seen to be at its lowest compared to the perceived reward of going independent and aligning more closely with the EU, and therefore the time at which those who want independence but felt 2014 was not the time are most likely to change views and vote Yes. On the flip side, if under these circumstances No were to win, then I would suggest that the issue would be settled for some considerable time.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You can play with statistics all you like, but if the same logic was applied, no governments would be formed as the percentage of the electorate voting for any one part would always be the minority.

The electorate have a right to vote and should they chose not to, they accept the position of those who did vote.

You cannot in hindsight attempt to lump non voters in any one side of the share of votes.

There is corruption in politics and this clearly is a corrupted attempt to articulate an false argument from a failing position.

The corruption is in your devious attempts to deny real life.
Let me simplify how democracy here in the UK works:

Think of it as a simple show of hands?
(You said before iirc that you don't agree with binary decisions - well agree or not the choice IS binary; hand up. Or hand down.
The only other option is to do nothing - in which case you will not be counted at all.)


Voting for say two or three main, large parties & a few smaller ones in an election.
A majority of hands for the most popular party does not necessarily equal a majority of hands from all those showing hands, does it?
It might be a majority of all those showing hands.
But it doesn't need to be.

Whereas for say a vote on independence, a majority of hands is needed.

Scotland does not consistently have such a majority.

End of.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You can play with statistics all you like, but if the same logic was applied, no governments would be formed as the percentage of the electorate voting for any one part would always be the minority.

UK parliamentary elections used the first past the post system to determine the representative for the constituency.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The electorate have a right to vote and should they chose not to, they accept the position of those who did vote.

True.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You cannot in hindsight attempt to lump non voters in any one side of the share of votes.

True in terms of party politics, you couldn't very well say that those who didn't vote Conservative all support Labour policies because all of the other parties who are not the Conservatives are different in some way. But you can unify opinion based on the manifesto's, policies and ideas of those parties.

Such as:

- opposition to austerity
- opposition to tax rises
- opposition to Brexit
- opposition to Scottish independence

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is corruption in politics and this clearly is a corrupted attempt to articulate an false argument from a failing position.

There probably is corruption in politics, I don't know for sure, it'd be a guess. But the vote share in the general election on June 8th in Scotland is unique in that two of the main parties are pro-independence, the others are unionist. The independence issue polarises politics in Scotland so a vote that is not for a pro-independence party can be counted as a vote against independence.

The same could be applied to the Brexit issue across the UK, except Labour and the Conservatives, by far the two largest parties, will execute Brexit so there is little chance that a popular vote share would indicate there is no longer an appetite for Brexit.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You can play with statistics all you like, but if the same logic was applied, no governments would be formed as the percentage of the electorate voting for any one part would always be the minority.

The electorate have a right to vote and should they chose not to, they accept the position of those who did vote.

You cannot in hindsight attempt to lump non voters in any one side of the share of votes.

There is corruption in politics and this clearly is a corrupted attempt to articulate an false argument from a failing position.

Please read this carefully.

Claiming that 60 odd percent of a country voted for something when they did not is incorrect. It is at best a mistake at worst deliberately misleading.

To get that particular figure correct you would have to include everyone whether they were registered or not and however old they were.

60% of those who voted ,,,, Ok but not 60% of the country.

That is what I was countering in my remark.

Hope that's clear for you.

HornetSaver

IveSeenTheLight wrote:

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

In the interests of keeping it readable I'll stick to the points where we significantly disagreed.

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.

Because I believe that a majority of Scots, across the divide, want the next Indyref to be the one that decides the issue. I also believe that a majority of Scots, across the divide, do not see any prospect of Scotland maintaining an unbroken membership of the EU (not even if there is widespread political consensus within Scotland to do so).

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 trusted

Through a Holyrood election.

If the shift has been as substantial as the 62/38 proponents for Indyref2 believe it has been, and if the SNP adopt the same tactics that May has used to get a mandate to deliver Brexit as she sees fit, then the outcome should be similar in Holyrood for the SNP as the 2017 GE seems set to be for the Tories. If not, then the next Holyrood election (which is now presumably going to be in 2020) would be an appropriate period of time to wait as the reality for Scotland post-Brexit and the options for Scotland with respect to doing a new deal with the EU and/or becoming a member would be clearer.

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"). 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

(quote from below bundled in as we're pretty much covering the same thing here)

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

I can understand why people would come to that view. I've outlined in my previous post and previous answer why I do not. But even if for argument's sake I came to the same view, I'd still say that waiting until Brexit is a done deal (though using Section 30 to hold a referendum at the back end of this parliament, perhaps early 2020) would be the best way forward.

The Scottish Government has a duty to make sure that Scotland gets the best outcome for the years to come under either indyref outcome. Holding that referendum prior to Brexit being implemented runs counter to that objective as the process would make it more difficult for the pro-independence Government to be as involved with the Brexit negotiations as is possible. Or to phrase it the other way around, it would be more reasonable for May to sideline a Scottish Government from the negotiations if it were actively seeking to leave, in the same way that the UK is currently sidelined from most EU decision making processes.

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.

There is also no point in having an IndyRef2 if there is a significant belief that in the immediate aftermath of Brexit there will be good cause for holding IndyRef3 due to Brexit not being as advertised. Given the amount of continued uncertainty about what Brexit means, I'd say a late 2018 or early 2019 referendum makes that scenario more likely.

.string.

Personally, I don't think the GE results will make much difference to the actions of either the SNP and their greens or the UK Government (unless something dramatic happens) other than co!ouring the mood music.

Sturgeon will keep chasing her rainbow and May will continue to reject the timing. Yes, the date of 2021/2 seems the most likely if the SNP can get ratification from the Scottish public in a Scottish Parliamentary election, a ratification which they don't have at the moment.

Should the SNP follow the route of trying a faux-refefendum I've little doubt but that it would be challenged legally let alone by the UK Government but particularly by Scots themselves. For sure the UK Government would declare it unconstitutional

Arguments regarding the timing are substantial and unless May makes a clumsy refusal of the principle of having any referendum I really don't see the SNP have anything to gain except a really big legal bill.