Indyref 2

Discussion in 'Scotland/Alba' started by weepiper, Mar 13, 2017.

  1. EastEnder

    EastEnder Brixton Barnacle

    I definitely think Sturgeon has made the right call. I am an outsider, but it seems to me like the Yes vote doesn't have the numbers at the mo, and the best catalyst to change that will be in the future, when Scotland as a whole can see what a pigs ear the UK gov makes of Brexit.
  2. 1%er

    1%er Well-Known Member

    Yes I guess so but I was answering a post made in a different thread.

    Out of interest have there been any polls in Scotland asking about independence in Scotland outside the EU as opposed to remaining in the EU. I'd be interested to know how many pro-independence Scott's want that independence outside the EU rather then inside the EU.

    What I'm asking really is, do a majority of pro-independence voters want "full independence" and not just swapping the UK/Brussels rule for just Brussels rule, total self-governance independent of both London and Brussels.
  3. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    Sort of, but they were badly designed. The most recent one asked three different pro Indy options and only one anti Indy option. The poll was then claimed to show No wax way ahead. But it was a case of garbage in garbage out.

    Personally I'd prefer independence outside the EU, and for the SNP to ease off on the Brexit focus.

    I think today's announcement had a flavour of that, talking about the other reasons for independence and building up the case for independence. This is a good thing.

    What Sturgeon's now saying has a striking resemblance to much of what Jim Sillars has been saying (except for his staying out of the EU stuff). Some SNP loyalists have been rounding on him for his counsel, calling him a "Yoon dupe" and all sorts. It'll be interesting to see if they change their tune now.
    Poi E and 1%er like this.
  4. Wilf

    Wilf Cocksucking Angry Columbo

    Yeah, I was a bit quick off the mark. Saw more detail in the story but was rushing a bit (actually doing some work! :oops:).
    danny la rouge likes this.
  5. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    Now, normally I wouldn't recommend paying any attention to Willie Rennie, but it has to be admitted he's one of the few people on twitter who seem to have actually read what Sturgeon said.
  6. Celyn

    Celyn Well-Known Member

    Wow. I had forgotten the existence of Willie Rennie. :)
  7. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    Then I'm truly sorry.
    Poi E and Celyn like this.
  8. 1%er

    1%er Well-Known Member

    Surely there is a clear difference from what she said in March, while I follow this all from a distance I have looked up what she said and it was "she wanted to give Scots a second chance to vote on leaving the UK some time between the autumn of 2018 and the spring 2019", she has now decided to move those dates. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the SNP loosing 21 seats in the recent election.

    I think she is right to move the dates, I think before there is any call for a second referendum the nationalists need to ensure they will get a majority or they will fuck it up good style for the next 30 years.

    To be able to make any sort of informed decision the Scottish people need to fully understand what Brexit means in the real world and if an independent Scotland would be better off inside or outside the EU.

    I think the independence vote could be split by those who want in the EU and those who don't, like you the Scott's I know want "independents outside the EU" and I don't think they would vote for independents if the choice was to stay with-in the EU, they'd rather wait until the EU imploded and then have the vote (but as there is only 5 of them I'm not sure it would make a big difference :) ).
  9. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    But she clearly says in the statement she gave today that it'll be in this Holyrood parliamentary term. So she's still talking about a referendum around the end of the Brexit negotiations. Possibly after, now.

    But she didn't actually say. All we know is that she isn't putting in motion the legislation to set the date. For all the talk of "resetting", there's nothing to contradict earlier statements (except that we're now trying to guess a possible rescheduled date. Maybe six months later).

    What Rennie and other Unionists wanted to hear was that it was all off. It isn't.
    Celyn likes this.
  10. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    looks fairly clear to me that she's saying after -

    "end of the Brexit process" to me suggests: once we've actually left. If she'd meant conclusion of negotiations she'd have said that.
  11. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    When will the referendum be? It’s not off the table and if I am reading the statement delivered yesterday correctly, Nicola Sturgeon has signalled that it’ll be in this Scottish parliamentary term. So that’s some point before May 2021. It’s unlikely to be May 2021, because that’s when the Holyrood elections are, so I’m guessing any time up to Autumn 2020.

    That’s good. It gives us time.

    What we need to do first is learn some lessons.

    I’m going to get to the SNP and their role shortly, but first I want to look at the general election of June 2017, not for the SNP’s role, but for that of the Tories.

    We have been told that the rise in the Scottish Tory fortunes (and to some degree those of the smaller parties, Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dems) was because of a vote for the Union. But was it? Are we sure about that?

    Look at the actual message. The Tories sold two simple messages – 1. no to a “divisive second referendum on independence”, and 2. They’re the Ruth Davidson party.

    Let’s take them one at a time. The first message is not them making a case for the Union. Nor is it simply a case against independence. It’s a case against another referendum.

    Why? Why did they go for that angle? My guess is that they’d done voter research and discovered that there was considerable voter fatigue. People in Scotland had had an independence referendum in 2014, a UK general election in 2015, Scottish Parliament elections in 2016, an EU referendum in 2016, local council elections in May 2017 and now a UK general election in June 2017. I think the message the researchers were getting back was that many people had had enough.

    What the Scottish Tories then had to do was hang their argument on that peg. And they did it with single-mindedness and skill. (I think it was a strategy they had in place long before May called the June general election, because they used it in the May local elections, too. Which no doubt helped them continue to drive the message home in June).

    Look at the wording on the leaflets:

    “Another divisive referendum campaign”

    “Rather than listen to people who don’t want her referendum…”

    “An unwanted, divisive second referendum”.

    “The only way to bring the SNP back down to size and say no to their referendum is by voting Scottish Conservative”.

    This message clearly struck home for many people, some of them former SNP voters. But let’s be precise about what the message was: it was a message opposing another referendum.

    Jim Sillars has been saying this for a while now, and often getting no thanks for his pains. I don’t agree with Jim about everything, but I do think he’s right about this. However, it’s worth pointing out that I’m only making an educated guess, just as Sillars is. (Robin McAlpine made some useful points about voter research here: Robin McAlpine: What the indy movement needs to do next He also has something to say about the inadvisability of trying to sell the idea of a referendum per se: don’t). But we can find out if it’s a good educated guess fairly easily.

    Don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think referendums are “divisive”, nor do I think debate is “divisive”. I enjoyed the 2014 indyref. I found it an exciting and positive time. But I’m a political anorak (and let’s face it, if you’re reading this far down this post, so are you); most people are not. For many people, four election campaigns, two referendum campaigns, and a handful of different electoral systems all within a three-year period is more than enough. The thought of another is probably pretty off-putting. And the Tories skilfully tapped into that.

    The second Tory message I’m less interested in. It seems that they found that a certain target group tends to like Ruth Davidson. I don’t personally get what it is they’re responding to, but I’m not interested in getting into a discussion of her personality. I do think it’s inadvisable for any organisation to hook their wagon to a star in the longer term, though. But that’s an issue for them.

    Now the SNP. During the last indyref, we had the somewhat mixed blessing of the White Paper. For understandable reasons, it was a prospectus not so much for independence, but for the programme of an SNP government post-independence. This is because they were being asked those questions. But there’s actually a difference between independence and the manifesto of the SNP post-independence. The independence movement needs to put the former, and the SNP can put the latter. We need people to be able to distinguish the two things. If the electorate judge the merits of the case for independence on whether or not they approve of the SNP, then we will lose the referendum again. Remember, by Autumn 2020, the SNP will have been in government for 13 years.

    What the pro indy movement needs to do is set out why independence is a good thing. It needs to be able to make that case whether or not the SNP is the first government. Remember, people were asked to vote for Brexit regardless of which parties would form post-Brexit UK governments. This does not stop the SNP from setting out its stall. But if people start to think that the only reason to have independence is to let the SNP (or any other party) implement its policies, then we’re in trouble. The SNP needs to be a party, and the pro indy movement needs to be a movement. The SNP will, of course, be a major part of that, but we do need the electorate to be able to differentiate between the SNP and the indy movement. And some SNP loyalists will need to learn to realise that not everyone in the indy movement agrees with the SNP on everything, and that this is OK.

    I think Robin McAlpine is right that the White Paper was too sprawling, but more importantly that much of it “barely related to the actual process of independence” (1). He says that “Restricting ourselves only to the institutions and infrastructure required of a new country but which is not currently in place in Scotland, we should build a coherent, thought-through plan” (2).

    Correct. That’s where we are now, and that’s what needs to be done. Individual parties can do their own thing, but the indy movement as a whole needs to be able to make a clear case for why independence is desirable, and to be able to present a coherent plan for the process of becoming independent.

    (1) McAlpine, R, (2016) Determination: how Scotland can become independent by 2021, Glasgow: CommonPrint (p27)

    (2) ibid
    Celyn and kabbes like this.
  12. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope


    Trump says independence would be "terrible" and the Open golf tournament might not be hosted in an independent Scotland. (Source: Mail online).
    geminisnake and Celyn like this.
  13. pogofish

    pogofish Testicle Hairstyle

    Things are looking brighter already...! :D
  14. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

    I suspect more than that will switch to 'NO'.
    Did you notice that the SNP are in dire financial straits? I had wondered why they had to borrow from that pair of idiots in Largs.

    They can't balance their books as a party, yet expect to be handed a country to play with. Absolutely risible.
  15. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

    The SNP lie about EU membership. An independent Scotland's deficit is many times the allowed limit.
  16. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    Why would you think the SNP's party finances were related to the sentence of mine that you quoted? You're a very strange man.
  17. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Are you not the SNP treasurer and, as such, the main consideration in peoples minds when voting?
    weepiper, Poi E and danny la rouge like this.
  18. Fedayn

    Fedayn Well-Known Member

    danny la rouge likes this.
  19. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

  20. TheHoodedClaw

    TheHoodedClaw acknowledging ur soup leg

  21. Poi E

    Poi E Pessimism: a valuable protection against quackery.

    For whatever it's worth, the latest Panelbase poll is showing Yes vote at 40%, No at 53%.
  22. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    The Growth Commission report came out yesterday, and as nobody else has posted here about it I suppose it falls on me to mention it. I'm at best underwhelmed, I'm afraid. I wasn't a fan of the previous White Paper currency policy we had to deal with in 2014, but unless modified, this, although substantially similar, actually manages to be worse. I can see the logic for a brief transition period of pegged currency, as I've said before. But the Six Tests all sounds a bit Gordon Brown, and gives a hostage to fortune that could see an independent Scotland's economic policy driven by the Bank of England and the Westminster Treasury for a considerable period. The whole point of independence would be to be able to do things differently. Being forced to follow Westminster and leaving Holyrood with few economic leavers seems pretty pointless to me. I agree substantially with Richard Murphy's assessment here.

    And I can't see this kick starting a renewed interest in a second referendum, for which, unfortunately, I can see no appetite.

    Growth Commission reaction: Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Murphy, Craig Dalzell plus more

    What's in the SNP's growth commission report?
  23. redsquirrel

    redsquirrel This Machine Kills Progressives


    Regardless of anything else it seems to be a bad piece of politics by the SNP, I can't see this as convincing those who voted against independence in 2014 to voting for next time around.
    danny la rouge likes this.
  24. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

    As this is an SNP production, it has all the validity of a chocolate fireguard.

    An independent report would have validity, but the SNP wouldn't risk that. Unlike them it would be honest.

    Kicking out the minority SNP government at the next Holyrood election will kill a second referendum, which no one bar the 'Blood and soil' nationalists wants.

    I've heard, second hand, that the 50p per unit is losing them votes, as the fiscally illiterate white cider drinkers suddenly discover what their tipple now costs.
  25. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Warning: posts may cause vasovagal presyncope

    A tour de force, sass. You take a policy I disagree with, you add some misanthropy, and I'm looking for any side to be on but yours. You're the SNP's secret weapon on these boards.
    kabbes and redsquirrel like this.
  26. gosub

    gosub ~#

    Did here someone the other day outlining how bollocks strong cheap cider was actually a bread and circuses thing that kept the great unwashed from revolting... Certainty a brave move attacking it
  27. redsquirrel

    redsquirrel This Machine Kills Progressives

    Urgh. And this coming from the bloke that doesn't do abuse.
    kabbes and danny la rouge like this.
  28. Poi E

    Poi E Pessimism: a valuable protection against quackery.

    If they drank better cider they'd stop voting SNP and go back to Labour, the blighters.
  29. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

    To point out that the price increase came as quite a shock, to those who cannot work out units of alcohol in a volume of cider, is hardly abuse, is it?

    There is a simple way, but too simple for some it seems.

    3l @ 7.5% = 1.5l @ 15% = 750ml @ 30% = 375ml @ 60%. A unit is 25ml @ 40%, so multiply your 60% volume by 1.5 = 562ml @ 40% divide by 25 = 22.5 units of alcohol in a 3l bottle of strong cider. Given that the weekly indicated limit for men is 14 units, one bottle is a week and a half. Of course, it was some people's daily intake until it jumped from £3.69 to £11.25.

    The numerically illiterate are not great news watchers, a goodly number of people did not see this coming, a £7.56 increase in their booze bill.
  30. Poi E

    Poi E Pessimism: a valuable protection against quackery.

    Anyone looked at the Scotland in Union site recently? If that's the best propaganda the Union has then it's fucked.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice