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

Enterprise_1701C

Tell you one thing, IF you get another independence referendum I personally would like to ensure that there is a written document put in place saying that the result will stand for at least 30 years.  

If you vote out you are out, no subsidies, no sticking to the pound, no using UK embassies, no using UK armed forces etc etc.

Oh, and the above stands when you suddenly find that it would take a lot of austerity measures to qualify to join the eu.  Why on earth you want to gain independence and then throw it away I have no idea.

And where's this announcement about having an unofficial referendum?

Malthusian

Enterprise_1701C said:

Tell you one thing, IF you get another independence referendum I personally would like to ensure that there is a written document put in place saying that the result will stand for at least 30 years.

Why? Parliament can't bind its successors. What do you think will happen if Scotland and rUK sign such an agreement, and 20 years later aliens land and promise to give humanity the cure for cancer on condition that London gives Scotland another referendum? If the answer is "jointly agree to annul the 30-year agreement and take the cure for cancer" you acknowledge that such an agreement is completely pointless. If neither the Scots nor the rUK want another referendum in that timeframe it is superfluous, and if later events create enough political pressure to hold another referendum it is worthless.

 If you vote out you are out, no subsidies, no sticking to the pound, no using UK embassies, no using UK armed forces etc etc.

That will be subject to negotiation if and when Scotland leaves. This is the old Remainer "What's the plan" delusion that one side in a bilateral negotiation gets to decide the outcome.

Oh, and the above stands when you suddenly find that it would take a lot of austerity measures to qualify to join the eu.  Why on earth you want to gain independence and then throw it away I have no idea.

As the UK has now proven, if Scotland joins the EU it can leave any time it wants. So it will still be independent.

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

Yes you are confusing things. Your percentages are votes for parties and you're equating it with independence support. They're not the same sorry. " It also suggests a significantly higher Yes support among Labour voters than YouGov reported – and if it’s true that more than one-third of the rump Labour vote in the 2019 election want Scotland to be an independent country, "http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2020/02/scot-goes-pop-panelbase-poll-on.html

And you're again using the Westminster GE as a mandate. The mandate is from 2016 where Sturgeon got a higher vote share than Salmond did.. yet his mandate got him a referendum with just 6 MP's at Westminster.

Polling on indepenence is all we have since the last ref was 6 years ago, and the UK was part of the EU. Scots voted to stay in both unions. They need to have a democratic choice now between them. It's quite simple. re Polling, is there a reason you're not excluding the Don't Know's ? Because equally, those figures for wishing to stay in the Union aren't much of a mandate for it either are they ? There is only one way to decide once and for all who wants what. Yet we're being denied that choice and we all know why. Boris will lose.

That's how our political system works...Parties put forward policies and people vote for those parties. Even with the poll stating one-third of Labour voters are pro-Indy, it still puts support for Indy below 50%.
I'm using Westminster GE as it was the last election and gives the latest position on a mandate, using 2016 also leaves Indy parties short of 50% of voters. Again though, you are stating on one hand Unionists can't use Elections as proof of support for remaining in the Union because it doesn't reflect opinions on that specific issue, but you are happy to claim a mandate based on the 2016 election and the SNP performance (still under 50%), you can't have it both ways.
If you look at polling, it hasn't changed significantly from the last referendum, despite the major changes/lies/Brexit/etc that keep being cited as reasons for another Indy Ref, these "major factors" have barely moved the needle on polls. 
I'm excluding don't knows, as we don't know their opinion and it shows there is no clear support for an Indy ref unlike you claim.
There was one way to decide, we had a vote and remain won. If you want another vote, you need to show there has been a clear change of opinion, which you can't. Polls/Elections, however, you look at it, despite everything that's happened, you don't have the support of more than 50% of the voters, the Indy side just like to shout louder and go on marches where the same folk are bused about the country and claim this as proof of a change in support.

You're again forgetting those who cannot vote in elections, yet can in a scottish independence referendum. The franchises are different. So yes, you're confusing support and you're still using the words 'indy parties'. There IS only one way to measure independence support in Scotland, and it's not through the SNP and their vote shares in elections. You cannot say that independence support remains below 50% of the voters by using a general election franchise. You need a referendum which includes all those elegible to vote in a referendum do that.

If Scotland wants another vote, then the Scottish Parliament which has already voted to hold one twice now, should organise one. It's as simple as that. Boris is quite free to challenge the Scottish parliament should be wish to do so. The mandate to hold a second indy ref has already been mandated and passed by the place that mandated and passed the last one. No one needs to 'show' anything to you or anyone else. All the proof you need is already at Holyrood.

The reason Nicola Sturgeon is going down in many voters estimations is that she has so far been reluctant to act decisively in organising a second ref despite winning mandates left right and centre. She's seen as being far too cautious when a lot of Scots voters don't want caution. We're out of the EU, and a catastrophic no trade deal scenario is still very much in the picture. We need action. It does seem though like many in the party, particularly Joanna Cherry QC are willing to make moves now regarding organising a second ref and facing down court action. And of course the court action which has already been started is due to pick up the pace in a few weeks time ( currently awaiting a response from the UK Govt, which of course won't be forthcoming).  I can see Joanna and other MP's and MSP's joining this now. Nicola needs to either pick up the mantle or else move aside as others do it anyway.

"Today's front page ...

@joannaccherry

says: Let's tell Boris we'll see him in court over indyref2"

https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1226769518719991808

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH said:

Source of the news is far less relevant than the fact a Poll conducted by a recognised third party polling organisation has found most Scots want the Scottish Parliament to have control over Indyref 2, and 3 polls recently find support over 50% for Indy.

The question poll has 50% of people saying the courts should determine if the Scottish Parliament can hold a referendum. Its a very misleading question as it sets out the premise of "“There are differing legal opinions on whether the Scottish Parliament currently has the power to hold a consultative referendum" “do you think the Scottish Parliament should...allow the courts to decide whether it can take place?”. When you phrase something as there are different legal opinions, should we let the courts decide, the common assumption is "yes, the courts decide what is legal".
The 3 polls don't show more than 50%, they all show less than 50% (between 43% and 49%), you are then making an assumption that at least half the don't knows in the poll vote for Indy. That is not a true 50%, it is bending the facts.

You're making the assumption that at least half the don't knows will vote for the Union though. There is even less support for the Union than there is for indy averaging out those polls. Nowhere shows over 50% for the Union do they ? Don't knows are just that, they don't know and can't be counted as support for staying in the Union either.

Herzlos

Malthusian said:

"On balance Hitler did more good than harm" - Boris Johnson

She made a fairly reasonable point from a historical/economic point of view. She didn't say Mao was a good guy or that killing tens of millions of people was a good thing.

I'm also not entirely sure it was racist or anything else. Politically naive, given that she should have known she'd be attacked relentlessly over everything she said.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C said:

[quote]Oh, and the above stands when you suddenly find that it would take a lot of austerity measures to qualify to join the eu.  Why on earth you want to gain independence and then throw it away I have no idea.[/quote]

It's like you've never read any of the Scottish Independence views and don't understand the subject matter, possibly willfully.

Why do you keep asserting that the UK (which we're not allowed to leave without Westminster saying so) and the EU (which we demonstrably can leave) are the same thing?

Why wouldn't we want to leave an overlord and join in a community?

Enterprise_1701C

It seems a bit of a desperate move by the SNP to pay for Europe Loves Scotland to be projected onto the EU Commission building, and then suggest it was done by the EU.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18224120.scotland-europe-projection-eu-building-investigated-belgian-police/

Shakethedisease

Is that so.. 

https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1223375941495394305?s=09

Enterprise_1701C

Shakethedisease said:

Is that so.. 

https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1223375941495394305?s=09

That tweet appears to have been made later than the one enclosed on the story I linked to which definitely intimates that it was down to the eu commission, and it appears that the sNP did not have permission.

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH said:

Thrugelmir said:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH said:

Well I for one am absolutely astonished how good a job Boris is doing... at driving up support for Scottish Independence.

3 polls in the last couple of weeks with support for Indy at or above 50%.

And now this...

SCOTTISH voters back a legal battle with Boris Johnson over indyref2 if he continues to refuse a Section 30 order, a new poll has revealed.
More than half believe the Scottish Parliament should legislate to hold a referendum if Westminster does not agree to it – and then allow the courts to decide if it can take place.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18221754.scots-back-legal-battle-boris-referendum/?ref=twtrec

Published in a paper that supports Scottish Independence. Unfortunately doesn't deflect from the real news that afflicts the SNP currently. 

Source of the news is far less relevant than the fact a Poll conducted by a recognised third party polling organisation has found most Scots want the Scottish Parliament to have control over Indyref 2, and 3 polls recently find support over 50% for Indy.

Support for a Border Poll in Northern Ireland is also skyrocketing.

You can try to distract from that all you like by attacking the SNP on wholly unrelated matters.  It matters not one jot that you do... 

The breakup of the UK is getting closer by the day.  Scotland and Northern Ireland will break away and rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity, Wales will no doubt follow a few years later.  Leaving Little England as the rump state, having lost 55`% of Britain's land mass, 60% of the territorial waters, and 70% of the natural resources. 

The Balkanisation of Britain - A sad, humiliating, and pathetic end to the once great nation of the UK - But one that was made inevitable by misguided English Nationalism and arrogance in trying to drag the rest of us out of the EU against our will.

Certainly won't be ethnic cleansing or a dictatorship in England. Nor a civil war.