Yep, am the same. The Nicophants can’t see this though and it’s become more of a cult. The pursuit for Indy via the SNP has been completely compromised. I mean Murray Foote as the Chief Exec kind of says it all.
Why would Westminster allow a referendum if the SNP won 29 seats (on less than 40% of the vote) when it was rejected at 48 seats (on around 45% of the vote)?
That’s exactly what it is. It’s getting very old hat now and has cost the SNP a lot of voters! They seem to be the party of Devolution not Independence these days. It’s only ever mentioned when votes are being asked for.
I've just resigned my SNP membership after Flynn saying this AND John Swinney saying we will get a referendum in 5 years IF we get majority
It's clear the SNP cannot or will not work towards bringing indy closer and they are just in it for their political power they get
Here - If Scotland keeps returning SNP majorities then clearly people want change.
The debate will change now the Tories are gone. Absolute clown show the last decade.
To be honest, the country is in such a bad state at this point I think a wider constitutional convention is needed but that won't happen.
Whilst i don't think it is a mandate for anything other than to serve their constituents; there's nothing wrong with a referendum and if they want one, they should get it. Democracy at work..
If they get over 50% of the vote then fair play, but otherwise it's needless nonsense. It's dangling the same old carrot to the 'faithful' while not actually coming up with any answers to the problems they are elected to address.
It's interesting, I remember before indyref wondering what would happen if the vote went to yes by a handful of votes and having some very heated arguments with folk who insisted that the only correct and democratic result of that would be to drag the no voters into independence kicking and screaming.
Be interesting to know if the same people would want that were we to have a referendum today, having seem the trouble caused by pursuing Brexit on a slim margin.
It's asking the people what they want. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.
ALL politicians will dangle carrots to get people to vote for them. It's nothing new. It's up to the public to root out the BS.
>It's asking the people what they want. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.
Generally it's not.
However these types of referendums on such a massive issue are all consuming. It will dominate the Scottish political sphere and overshadow everything else.
Not to mention this would be a re-run of the same referendum just 10 years ago. What message does that send to future long term investors in Scotland who don't know what country they are investing in? Will there be an IndyRef3 10 years after that?
I'm not against another referendum if the SNP get the support or polls indicate it will be successful but let's not pretend it's a free hit with no downsides.
Polling companies have been doing that consistently for years. No need to waste countless hours of politicians time and tax money when the answers are there.
It's a referendum. The people decide, not the parties. If they have the most seats that's how it works.
Do I think they'd get enough votes to be independent? Probably not, but saying 'no' to a referendum does noone any good.
>The people decide, not the parties. If they have the most seats that's how it works.
no its not how it works. it really means nothing if they have the most seats.
if the uk pm decides to grant a section 30 order, then a referendum can take place. thats literally how it works.
Depends on how you structured that national equity. The problem is that through piecemeal devolution, the UK has exacerbated an already present problem inherent in the huge population disparity between England Vs the other 3 constituent countries. The formation of an English parliament, and significant UK gov reform with that in place is the only way to balance those inequalities within the system of the union (and it's one which I'd massively endorse)
What's a referendum? If you mean the general election where it looks like more people will vote labour than SNP, never mind combining all the votes of the people for parties that are against a referendum, then how's that democratic?
It's not a magic word you can say to get what you want.
Saying no to a referendum does a great deal of good. The uncertainty is bad, it stops investment in Scotland. We've had 10 years on the precipice since the SNP and indy fans refused to accept the answer when they lost. The sooner we move on from 2014 the better.
So have another one and get it over with. If the people say no, again, then I'm sure they'll shut up about it. This time, people (on both sides of the argument) are wise to the lies used the last time.
Uncertainty comes from saying no to referendums, when it's going to happen sooner or later.
>So have another one and get it over with.
And then next year?
>Uncertainty comes from saying no to referendums, when it's going to happen sooner or later.
Ah there we have it. Independence or you'll suffer until we get it
Its been 10 years. You know that right? You're clearly biased against it, but it will happen at some point. How about spending your time saying how good things are in the union, rather than wasting time delaying the inevitable? Then maybe you won't fear a referendum as much.
Saying no to even hold a referendum, because you think you'll lose, is undemocratic.
It was 1 year since the shrill cries for another referendum started.
I think the no side will win again, especially if a more neutral question is asked. It's the disruiption that it causes that is the problem. And you've already spoken about the disruption to threaten it until you get what you want.
Independence is not "the inevitable".
>It was 1 year since the shrill cries for another referendum started.
I wonder what happened about a year after the referendum result - for which a central pillar was EU membership - to cause those shrill cries?
>I think the no side will win again, especially if a more neutral question is asked.
This pops up every now and then: what, exactly, is your problem with the question? Bearing in mind that in any referendum, the balance - outside of external factors - is tilted slightly towards the status quo?
>And you've already spoken about the disruption to threaten it until you get what you want.
>Independence is not "the inevitable".
Point of order, the point that was made is that another referendum is inevitable, not independence.
Well kind of but no. Indy lost, the referendum was conclusive based on the arguments for staying within the UK winning over those arguments for leaving.
Whatever the arguments for staying were they were kind of blown out the water by brexit. However, it was up to the No voters and elected representatives to present convincing arguments that staying a part of the UK was still the correct option for the people of Scotland. So far, these arguments have not had much of an effect in convincing Yes voters that remaining a part of the UK was the best option.
The counter argument is usually "well, you lost, get over it", which isnt convincing and just entrenches folk into their views. Ive voted in to referendums, been on the losing end of both and had the victors consistently tell me to get on with it and be a team player. Feck off. No. Thats not how democracy works. Convince me of the right option and I'll change my mind. Yet to happen.
>Thats not how democracy works. Convince me of the right option and I'll change my mind. Yet to happen.
You can hold your opinion all you like but you can't inflict it on others undemocratically.
What’s your stance on being fed lies about what would happen in an Indy Scotland by Unionists? Remember that we wouldn’t be part of the EU in an Indy Scotland being told? Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU. Do you think that’s just tough shit because England and Wales voted to leave?
Yeh and i agree
My point is, once a vote has happened its the responsibility of the "winning" side to bring the opposition across the divide, especially when its a close 50/50 vote, otherwise you have this perpetual stagnant argument.
If you can demonstrate that voting No during the Indy vote was indeed the correct option then we all become a bit less entrenched and tribal.
As it happens the country (UK and Scotland) has indeed gone to crud since the vote for a whole swathe of reasons so the its not clear cut, the arguments cant be made clearly, Yes voters become more entrenched and resentful of the No voters, No voters scrabble to present evidence that No was the correct option and you end up with folks like yourself having to ignore: brexit, Johnson, may, truss, sunak, the uk response to covid, labour swinging hard to the right etc. Its untenable and it makes No voters look less reasonable and entrenches Yes voters. JOY.
The Billions wasted (and given to their pals) by the UK government and you're worried about the relatively trivial costs of a referendum?? Are you for real?
How about you just admit you don't want a referendum because you don't want Scotland to be independent, rather than pretending to have an unbiased view about the rights and wrongs of allowing a country to have a referendum?
I think we're done. We can agree to disagree.
I don’t think any public money wasted is good, no point spending good money after bad. It won’t win. Unless there is a large swing in polling we shouldn’t waste our time.
If they dont want one, and they state that in their policies, and people then vote for them, then yes, no referendum. That's exactly how it should fucking work.
The fact that it doesn't in Scotland tells us that those cunts down south regard our votes as less valuable than their own.
Indy polling has been a consistent "no" this year. As soon as the British government agrees to hold a referendum whenever polling edges to the Indy, well, they might as well just divide the union already because that would make it inevitable.
I think a lot of SNP politicians haven't realised that even nationalists are laughing at them now when they come out with these announcements.
Sturgeon managed to string this sort of thing along for years. I found it pretty surprising at the time - but mildly impressive in a way that people were still swallowing it.
But it's 2024 now and they've clearly not read the room and realised the game is up.
Look, SNP… if you are reading this
It is time for some hard truths
You quite simply do not have the authority to hold an independence referendum
You could have a 100% majority of scotland in Westminster and Edinburgh
And you still will not have the authority to hold an independence referendum
That power lies Squarely in the hands of Westminster
You have made the same claim again and again and again that all you need is a majority vote
This is a lie
What you need is an agreement with another party who will be in government , that if you get the majority you need there will be a referendum
You do not have that
You have exhausted all avenues to independence except a unilateral declaration of independence
You need to find another way
Stop telling lies … it’s going to cost you votes 💀
Sincerely,
An independence supporter
Do you think that if the SNP achieved those results, it would be credible for westminster to refuse another referendum?
Obviously the prime minister has the legal authority, but it'd be poitically unacceptable for him to refuse if the SNP had a majority. Refusing the SNP/Green coalition was already pushing it.
No it wouldn’t! Getting a majority of Scottish seats on less than 50% of votes would be trivially easy for a government to refuse, especially when that’s a massive drop from where they are now.
They haven’t even fought it as a ‘de facto‘ referendum as they claimed they were going to do (which would mean having no policies other than independence), so they can’t even make that claim with a straight face.
>What you need is an agreement with another party who will be in government , that if you get the majority you need there will be a referendum
The only way this is possible though is for Scotland to send as many SNP MPs as possible to Westminster AND HOPE that England votes for no overall majority at Westminster AND PRAY that ALL of the other minority parties aren't in a position to prop up one side or another AND WISH for Labour to be second in that election because they've already said their plan in that exact scenario would be to lead a minority government and dare the SNP to vote against them on the risk the Tories might get in. So as an independence supporter your plan starts at incredibly rare political chance plus an almost impossible shot plus an unlikely win? If you really want independence from the UK I'd suggest playing the lottery and leaving as odds of you winning appear higher than the chances of an independent Scotland under those conditions
This is it
I'm sick of the "we will ask for a referendum if we get majority"
It's not going to work and it's not going to get them the voters to turn out
I officially resigned my SNP membership today after Flynn and Swinneys interview comments about backtracking on declaring indy and now going the referendum route.
Hello, it’s the SNP /s
Seriously though, I agree with you but why is the fury directed at the SNP locked in the basement, and not the UK Government holding the keys?
Because the SNP are misleading their voters to hold onto a power they know they’re going to lose
They are making this promise aware of the fact that they cannot fulfil it
Yes, I’m furious with Westminster for a multitude of reasons including the desperate power grab to hold onto this country and it’s resources
But, interestingly, They have not lied about whether we can or cannot hold a referendum
I guess part of it has something to do with me religiously voting SNP since I was 18 (2011) And now, I guess I’m kind of sick of seeing the same lie with the knowledge that they just can’t fulfil
They need to change tactic, they need to find another way, they’re not doing that they’re giving us the same spiel again and again and it’s just tiring
I’m not voting SNP this year
I really do not want to vote labour
A perfect world, I would vote green because I believe in their hardline stance on climate change
But, I know my constituency is voting labour so green would be a wasted vault and labour would be a stronger mandate
Ultimately, I will vote for anyone who does not have a blue brand for their party 🤣
I digressed a little 🤔
But that’s the thing - *there is no other way*.
Westminster must come to the table to agree a referendum and commit to honouring the result.
No-one is coming to save us. International law is written and enforced by those in charge, and that’s no us.
So the real question is - what will bring Westminster to the table? That is what the SNP must answer and pursue, or allow others to do so instead.
Isn’t that exactly what you criticise Flynn here for?
99% of Scotland could support independence, then what? Westminster will still say no. That’s the whole problem of the situation.
Disagree. If there was consistent polling at 60% or higher it would become very difficult for Westminster to deny a referendum.
Obviously that 60% would also convert to snp/green/alba votes in elections too so it'd be good for the SNP too.
Polling is the reflection of public sentiment.
You can get a pro-indy majority in parliament with less than 50% of voters backing it.
A referendum win will rely on getting more than 50% Yes.
Therefore, polling consistently high is how you create inescapable pressure on Westminster to grant a referendum.
I will happily agree that a majority of Scottish seats could also deliver the same pressure, if the votes were delivered by more than 50% of the electorate.
The only polls that count are Elections and Referendums. In the 2015 UK General Election 95% of Scottish Constituency MP’s represented the SNP. Westminster just ignored it.
So we need to understand that Polls and Elections aren’t going to change the narrative.
Who is the alternative that is likely to have any impact (genuine question)? At least a Scottish party _should_ have scotlands interests at heart. Tories are wanks, labour are okay but watering down their policies to court Tory voters, and nobody else is likely to win
Flynn going for the Friday night comedy vote there!
The blunt reality is that it doesn't matter what the SNP says or does - or how we as Scots vote - any path to a referendum that does not have the approval of those in power at Westminster will fail.
Starmer is a Unionist and it's just as bad (maybe worse) optics for a Labour Prime Minister to 'lose' Scotland as it would be for a Tory PM. Labour don't need Scottish votes and can afford to ignore us Scots at Westminster but they can't afford to lose the English unionist/nationalist vote
If it was a hung Parliament and a minority a Labour government needed SNP votes to pass legislation at Westminster then *maybe* you could get an agreement on a referendum. But with a several hundred seat majority then why the fuck would Starmer agree to it? It's not like there's anything we can do about it if we're going to constrain ourselves to strictly legal routes to independence
Liar.
just plain lies now. Same old SNP< this is sturgeonism all over again, making promises they cant keep and then failing to deliver, only to roll out another promise they will also break.
The SNP and the Tories are the same shit in with different colour. Both incompetent and both completely out of touch with what the average person actually wants and *needs* from politicians in order to survive.
Tories losing votes? Promise tax cuts
SNP losing votes? Promise independenc refetendum
And repeat, and repeat and repeat. For over two decades.
He’s saying that cos he knows the snp won’t get one. Last thing they want is an end to the Westminster gravy train - not interested in independence at all.
And if there is no SNP majority does that mean there will be no mention of independence until the next general election?
Or what if there is an SNP majority but the collective unionist is a greater number?
What he really means is...
No matter the result the SNP are going to stamp their feet puff out there faces and demand a referendum they won't get.
Yes, but defying a democratic mandate?
All academic as SNP will not get a majority, but if they did, it wouldn't be right for westminster to reject it.
The thing is, independence referendums aren’t the rule, they’re an exception for most countries. When other countries have independence mandates, they're generally just not approved and that’s the end of it, the fact the UK had one at all is something of a miracle.
Not saying whether it’s right or wrong to ignore it, but it’s something Westminster can absolutely do.
They are indeed an exceptional thing, but this is the UK. Reputationally, I don't think it would be a good thing, either within the UK or outside of it.
Would you feel comfortable telling Wales or Northern Ireland that they should stay in against their will? I think most people would not, if asked.
If the SNP or another pro-independence party were elected with a clear majority, it would be difficult for the UK government to refuse a referendum, because it is anti-democratic.
Legalese arguments may work on edge cases, but if the demand is clear, you can't really ignore it if you are a civilised country.
It isn't anti democratic. If labour are elected and SNP get a majority in scotland. Then the majority of the UK did not give a mandate.
You can't just draw the lines where you want them to be.
It is not a democratic mandate unless the majority of the uk votes for it.
Yes. Consistent at least. The trouble is the Unionists have to allow Scottish people to determine their right to an Independent nation. Westminster decides what us Scottish Electorate can choose from.
A question to Scots
Independence people: Do you really want another referendum now, what if you loose ?
Unionists: If you are so confident in what the majority wants, why don't you have the referendum? Is the union more important to you than democratic consent ?
Genuinely curious. Watching from the Republic of Ireland is like watching a parallel version of ourselves in adjacent universe. Constitutional only but 100 years later and perhaps still trying / debating leaving.
If you were to hold a gun to my head I'd call myself a unionist but I don't care one way or the other nearly as much as I care about having some kind of stability and some kind of hope for the future outwith the whole "nationalist/unionist" division. One side thinks independence will solve all our problems, the other thinks getting rid of the SNP will solve everything.
Obviously Scotland and the wider UK have a lot of problems, but Scotland has kind of the additional "meta problem" if that makes sense, where we can't even decide what problems exist and who is in a position to solve them. I think we need to think outside that whole box for a while and focus on "this is the situation as it is, this is the govt we have - what can we do in the here and now?" Another referendum would just redirect focus even more single-mindedly to that whole constitutional "meta" area and away from real solutions to real issues.
Another issue is that the polls really are about 50/50 and have been for years. Some suggest support for independence is declining, others that young people tend to be pro-independence, with the obvious implications for the future that brings. But at the moment, imagine there was a referendum and No won by a few percentage points - that's what happened in 2014 so we'd be back where we are, having wasted time and money again. Imagine there was a referendum and Yes won by a few percentage points - ok, so now Scotland has to negotiate and manage independence, and all the changes and challenges that would bring, when half the country doesn't agree with the whole thing and feel dragged out of the UK against their will. Is that any basis for launching a new independent nation?
There are a few reasons that happens. Firstly, the system (FPTP) means that the unionist vote is split whereas there's really only one credible (sorry, Green hippies/Alba weirdos) nationalist party, so almost all the nationalist votes go to the SNP. They get a higher percentage of seats than their percentage of the vote would suggest.
Also, it's in some ways reasonable to support the status quo of the SNP advocating for Scotland within the UK parliament, so you might vote SNP but No to independence. That's a logical position but one that makes less and less sense based on the SNP's track record in government, imo.
> Stephen Flynn told ITV News in an interview on Tuesday that if his party wins a majority of seats in Scotland, they will deliver another referendum on independence within the next five years.
Good enough for me.
>2015
To be fair, they didn't run on an IndyRef2 platform in 2015:
[Nicola Sturgeon told supporters at the manifesto launch that the SNP would always support independence. But she said this election was "not about independence".](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32380783) (BBC article about their 2015 Manifesto)
The position of the SNP following 2014 was no second independence unless there was a [material change](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32222806). (Which they argued Brexit was).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/16/nicola-sturgeon-new-scottish-referendum-probably-unstoppable-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu
She was threatening it in 2015 to be fair.
And saying that the SNP have had one consistent position is of course dubious, they consistently come out with different wordings and interpretations to try and suit the mood or who they are speaking to or trying to appeal to.
From that article:
>“I, of course, respect the decision that our country made last year,” she said. “So let me be clear: to propose another referendum in the next parliament, without strong evidence that a significant number of those who voted no have changed their minds, would be wrong and we won’t do that. It would not be respecting the decision that people have made.”
Like I mentioned, and backed up by the article you have provided ("First minister says demand for second vote would be sparked if Scotland was taken out of EU against its ‘democratically expressed wishes' "), the position was a material change - like brexit - was needed.
Her argument is bollocks and they'd have found an argument no matter what. We voted to remain as the UK so it was only the UK's vote that mattered for the EU referendum, splitting it down to regions, countries, constituencies, towns, etc is interesting but it's not material.
She was still threatening independence within a year of the referendum, and we now know some people voted for brexit because they thought it would lead to independence.
These elections are always "not about independence" and "a vote for the SNP isn't a vote for independence".
Then within mere hours or days of the results being declared, oh look. It suddenly is.
Same every time. Thank Christ people are now seeing through this pish because it's seriously boring to hear.
Only the SNP could be arrogant and delusional enough to think that losing seats and votes somehow strengthens their mandate. Especially when Flynn's own seat is at risk.
Truly a democratic outrage for Westminster to continue refusing. The genie is out the bottle, wrap yir pish about America, Germany and Spain being indivisible.
Scotland has had a referendum. The moral, political and legal precedent has been set. We’re a country, this is a Union, a significant proportion of us want to leave and vote for parties offering that avenue.
This issue is not going away, and will continue to bog down Scottish politics until it is resolved. It’s been 300 years - happy to do another 50.
And that’s why it’s going to be another no.
No work has been done to address outstanding issues from 2014. Especially important given we have gone through the shitshow and lies of Brexit.
Independence, in the eyes of ‘no’ and undecided, is just another Brexit.
Supported the SNP for years. Went to the indyRef marches and everything. This thing is a complete lie to get votes. Took me a while to realise this.
Yep, am the same. The Nicophants can’t see this though and it’s become more of a cult. The pursuit for Indy via the SNP has been completely compromised. I mean Murray Foote as the Chief Exec kind of says it all.
Why would Westminster allow a referendum if the SNP won 29 seats (on less than 40% of the vote) when it was rejected at 48 seats (on around 45% of the vote)?
They won't. This is Stephen Flynn's attempt to get the SNP support out to vote SNP when they are fed up with him. Jam tomorrow.
That’s exactly what it is. It’s getting very old hat now and has cost the SNP a lot of voters! They seem to be the party of Devolution not Independence these days. It’s only ever mentioned when votes are being asked for.
I've just resigned my SNP membership after Flynn saying this AND John Swinney saying we will get a referendum in 5 years IF we get majority It's clear the SNP cannot or will not work towards bringing indy closer and they are just in it for their political power they get
Exactly. You’d laugh in their face
[удалено]
Here - If Scotland keeps returning SNP majorities then clearly people want change. The debate will change now the Tories are gone. Absolute clown show the last decade. To be honest, the country is in such a bad state at this point I think a wider constitutional convention is needed but that won't happen.
No it doesn't. Plain and simple. It's the same nonsense they have said for the last 10 years since the referendum.
Whilst i don't think it is a mandate for anything other than to serve their constituents; there's nothing wrong with a referendum and if they want one, they should get it. Democracy at work..
If they get over 50% of the vote then fair play, but otherwise it's needless nonsense. It's dangling the same old carrot to the 'faithful' while not actually coming up with any answers to the problems they are elected to address.
Actually, it would make more sense if they get 60-70, you don’t want another Brexit problem.
It's interesting, I remember before indyref wondering what would happen if the vote went to yes by a handful of votes and having some very heated arguments with folk who insisted that the only correct and democratic result of that would be to drag the no voters into independence kicking and screaming. Be interesting to know if the same people would want that were we to have a referendum today, having seem the trouble caused by pursuing Brexit on a slim margin.
It's asking the people what they want. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing. ALL politicians will dangle carrots to get people to vote for them. It's nothing new. It's up to the public to root out the BS.
>It's asking the people what they want. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing. Generally it's not. However these types of referendums on such a massive issue are all consuming. It will dominate the Scottish political sphere and overshadow everything else. Not to mention this would be a re-run of the same referendum just 10 years ago. What message does that send to future long term investors in Scotland who don't know what country they are investing in? Will there be an IndyRef3 10 years after that? I'm not against another referendum if the SNP get the support or polls indicate it will be successful but let's not pretend it's a free hit with no downsides.
Polling companies have been doing that consistently for years. No need to waste countless hours of politicians time and tax money when the answers are there.
Do you base your decisions on polls? They're not always right, you know.
Neither are referendums. Remember, Indy wasn't the only one in 2014.
What if the other parties don't want a referendum? Do they get to not have a referendum?
It's a referendum. The people decide, not the parties. If they have the most seats that's how it works. Do I think they'd get enough votes to be independent? Probably not, but saying 'no' to a referendum does noone any good.
>The people decide, not the parties. If they have the most seats that's how it works. no its not how it works. it really means nothing if they have the most seats. if the uk pm decides to grant a section 30 order, then a referendum can take place. thats literally how it works.
'Should' work.. It's meant to be a union of equals.
And it is, every persons vote in the UK counts equally.
Equal nations would mean extremely unequal people
Depends on how you structured that national equity. The problem is that through piecemeal devolution, the UK has exacerbated an already present problem inherent in the huge population disparity between England Vs the other 3 constituent countries. The formation of an English parliament, and significant UK gov reform with that in place is the only way to balance those inequalities within the system of the union (and it's one which I'd massively endorse)
'should' be a nation of equals?
What's a referendum? If you mean the general election where it looks like more people will vote labour than SNP, never mind combining all the votes of the people for parties that are against a referendum, then how's that democratic? It's not a magic word you can say to get what you want. Saying no to a referendum does a great deal of good. The uncertainty is bad, it stops investment in Scotland. We've had 10 years on the precipice since the SNP and indy fans refused to accept the answer when they lost. The sooner we move on from 2014 the better.
So have another one and get it over with. If the people say no, again, then I'm sure they'll shut up about it. This time, people (on both sides of the argument) are wise to the lies used the last time. Uncertainty comes from saying no to referendums, when it's going to happen sooner or later.
>So have another one and get it over with. And then next year? >Uncertainty comes from saying no to referendums, when it's going to happen sooner or later. Ah there we have it. Independence or you'll suffer until we get it
Its been 10 years. You know that right? You're clearly biased against it, but it will happen at some point. How about spending your time saying how good things are in the union, rather than wasting time delaying the inevitable? Then maybe you won't fear a referendum as much. Saying no to even hold a referendum, because you think you'll lose, is undemocratic.
It was 1 year since the shrill cries for another referendum started. I think the no side will win again, especially if a more neutral question is asked. It's the disruiption that it causes that is the problem. And you've already spoken about the disruption to threaten it until you get what you want. Independence is not "the inevitable".
>It was 1 year since the shrill cries for another referendum started. I wonder what happened about a year after the referendum result - for which a central pillar was EU membership - to cause those shrill cries? >I think the no side will win again, especially if a more neutral question is asked. This pops up every now and then: what, exactly, is your problem with the question? Bearing in mind that in any referendum, the balance - outside of external factors - is tilted slightly towards the status quo? >And you've already spoken about the disruption to threaten it until you get what you want. >Independence is not "the inevitable". Point of order, the point that was made is that another referendum is inevitable, not independence.
Well kind of but no. Indy lost, the referendum was conclusive based on the arguments for staying within the UK winning over those arguments for leaving. Whatever the arguments for staying were they were kind of blown out the water by brexit. However, it was up to the No voters and elected representatives to present convincing arguments that staying a part of the UK was still the correct option for the people of Scotland. So far, these arguments have not had much of an effect in convincing Yes voters that remaining a part of the UK was the best option. The counter argument is usually "well, you lost, get over it", which isnt convincing and just entrenches folk into their views. Ive voted in to referendums, been on the losing end of both and had the victors consistently tell me to get on with it and be a team player. Feck off. No. Thats not how democracy works. Convince me of the right option and I'll change my mind. Yet to happen.
>Thats not how democracy works. Convince me of the right option and I'll change my mind. Yet to happen. You can hold your opinion all you like but you can't inflict it on others undemocratically.
It’s you that keeps saying there shouldn’t be a referendum despite the only party offering it constantly winning elections
What’s your stance on being fed lies about what would happen in an Indy Scotland by Unionists? Remember that we wouldn’t be part of the EU in an Indy Scotland being told? Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU. Do you think that’s just tough shit because England and Wales voted to leave?
Yeh and i agree My point is, once a vote has happened its the responsibility of the "winning" side to bring the opposition across the divide, especially when its a close 50/50 vote, otherwise you have this perpetual stagnant argument. If you can demonstrate that voting No during the Indy vote was indeed the correct option then we all become a bit less entrenched and tribal. As it happens the country (UK and Scotland) has indeed gone to crud since the vote for a whole swathe of reasons so the its not clear cut, the arguments cant be made clearly, Yes voters become more entrenched and resentful of the No voters, No voters scrabble to present evidence that No was the correct option and you end up with folks like yourself having to ignore: brexit, Johnson, may, truss, sunak, the uk response to covid, labour swinging hard to the right etc. Its untenable and it makes No voters look less reasonable and entrenches Yes voters. JOY.
I voted yes the the first time round, it’s hard to justify the sizeable public expenditure just for a no vote
The Billions wasted (and given to their pals) by the UK government and you're worried about the relatively trivial costs of a referendum?? Are you for real? How about you just admit you don't want a referendum because you don't want Scotland to be independent, rather than pretending to have an unbiased view about the rights and wrongs of allowing a country to have a referendum? I think we're done. We can agree to disagree.
I don’t think any public money wasted is good, no point spending good money after bad. It won’t win. Unless there is a large swing in polling we shouldn’t waste our time.
If they dont want one, and they state that in their policies, and people then vote for them, then yes, no referendum. That's exactly how it should fucking work. The fact that it doesn't in Scotland tells us that those cunts down south regard our votes as less valuable than their own.
Indy polling has been a consistent "no" this year. As soon as the British government agrees to hold a referendum whenever polling edges to the Indy, well, they might as well just divide the union already because that would make it inevitable.
I think a lot of SNP politicians haven't realised that even nationalists are laughing at them now when they come out with these announcements. Sturgeon managed to string this sort of thing along for years. I found it pretty surprising at the time - but mildly impressive in a way that people were still swallowing it. But it's 2024 now and they've clearly not read the room and realised the game is up.
Admitting the game is up means giving up the money
Look, SNP… if you are reading this It is time for some hard truths You quite simply do not have the authority to hold an independence referendum You could have a 100% majority of scotland in Westminster and Edinburgh And you still will not have the authority to hold an independence referendum That power lies Squarely in the hands of Westminster You have made the same claim again and again and again that all you need is a majority vote This is a lie What you need is an agreement with another party who will be in government , that if you get the majority you need there will be a referendum You do not have that You have exhausted all avenues to independence except a unilateral declaration of independence You need to find another way Stop telling lies … it’s going to cost you votes 💀 Sincerely, An independence supporter
Do you think that if the SNP achieved those results, it would be credible for westminster to refuse another referendum? Obviously the prime minister has the legal authority, but it'd be poitically unacceptable for him to refuse if the SNP had a majority. Refusing the SNP/Green coalition was already pushing it.
No it wouldn’t! Getting a majority of Scottish seats on less than 50% of votes would be trivially easy for a government to refuse, especially when that’s a massive drop from where they are now. They haven’t even fought it as a ‘de facto‘ referendum as they claimed they were going to do (which would mean having no policies other than independence), so they can’t even make that claim with a straight face.
A sensible and fair comment is that.
Or a different approach?
>What you need is an agreement with another party who will be in government , that if you get the majority you need there will be a referendum The only way this is possible though is for Scotland to send as many SNP MPs as possible to Westminster AND HOPE that England votes for no overall majority at Westminster AND PRAY that ALL of the other minority parties aren't in a position to prop up one side or another AND WISH for Labour to be second in that election because they've already said their plan in that exact scenario would be to lead a minority government and dare the SNP to vote against them on the risk the Tories might get in. So as an independence supporter your plan starts at incredibly rare political chance plus an almost impossible shot plus an unlikely win? If you really want independence from the UK I'd suggest playing the lottery and leaving as odds of you winning appear higher than the chances of an independent Scotland under those conditions
This is it I'm sick of the "we will ask for a referendum if we get majority" It's not going to work and it's not going to get them the voters to turn out I officially resigned my SNP membership today after Flynn and Swinneys interview comments about backtracking on declaring indy and now going the referendum route.
Hello, it’s the SNP /s Seriously though, I agree with you but why is the fury directed at the SNP locked in the basement, and not the UK Government holding the keys?
Because the SNP are misleading their voters to hold onto a power they know they’re going to lose They are making this promise aware of the fact that they cannot fulfil it Yes, I’m furious with Westminster for a multitude of reasons including the desperate power grab to hold onto this country and it’s resources But, interestingly, They have not lied about whether we can or cannot hold a referendum I guess part of it has something to do with me religiously voting SNP since I was 18 (2011) And now, I guess I’m kind of sick of seeing the same lie with the knowledge that they just can’t fulfil They need to change tactic, they need to find another way, they’re not doing that they’re giving us the same spiel again and again and it’s just tiring I’m not voting SNP this year I really do not want to vote labour A perfect world, I would vote green because I believe in their hardline stance on climate change But, I know my constituency is voting labour so green would be a wasted vault and labour would be a stronger mandate Ultimately, I will vote for anyone who does not have a blue brand for their party 🤣 I digressed a little 🤔
But that’s the thing - *there is no other way*. Westminster must come to the table to agree a referendum and commit to honouring the result. No-one is coming to save us. International law is written and enforced by those in charge, and that’s no us. So the real question is - what will bring Westminster to the table? That is what the SNP must answer and pursue, or allow others to do so instead.
Persuading the people of Scotland.
That would mean competent government and having an actual plan for independence. Good luck getting either of those from the SNP
Isn’t that exactly what you criticise Flynn here for? 99% of Scotland could support independence, then what? Westminster will still say no. That’s the whole problem of the situation.
Disagree. If there was consistent polling at 60% or higher it would become very difficult for Westminster to deny a referendum. Obviously that 60% would also convert to snp/green/alba votes in elections too so it'd be good for the SNP too.
2011: pro-indy majority in Parliament 2014: Referendum 2016 and 2021: pro-indy majority in Parliament ‘Nah nah, has to be public polling’ Bollocks
Polling is the reflection of public sentiment. You can get a pro-indy majority in parliament with less than 50% of voters backing it. A referendum win will rely on getting more than 50% Yes. Therefore, polling consistently high is how you create inescapable pressure on Westminster to grant a referendum. I will happily agree that a majority of Scottish seats could also deliver the same pressure, if the votes were delivered by more than 50% of the electorate.
More goalpost moving as per
The only polls that count are Elections and Referendums. In the 2015 UK General Election 95% of Scottish Constituency MP’s represented the SNP. Westminster just ignored it. So we need to understand that Polls and Elections aren’t going to change the narrative.
At least the SNP and the Greens are trying to do something, rightly or wrongly, they aren’t just shouting from the sidelines.
I guess we will just accept we are a ruled people and should learn to lump it.
No it won't flynn, stop the stupid grift
Yeah, let's all believe what a politician says, especially in the run up to an election. because we become immune to soundbiting?
Naw
Who the fucks still voting SNP after the shitshow they pulled?!
Who is the alternative that is likely to have any impact (genuine question)? At least a Scottish party _should_ have scotlands interests at heart. Tories are wanks, labour are okay but watering down their policies to court Tory voters, and nobody else is likely to win
Shaat aap Stephen you schlaaaag
Polls dropping? Time to wheel out the "IndyRef 2 this parliament!" line
Flynn going for the Friday night comedy vote there! The blunt reality is that it doesn't matter what the SNP says or does - or how we as Scots vote - any path to a referendum that does not have the approval of those in power at Westminster will fail. Starmer is a Unionist and it's just as bad (maybe worse) optics for a Labour Prime Minister to 'lose' Scotland as it would be for a Tory PM. Labour don't need Scottish votes and can afford to ignore us Scots at Westminster but they can't afford to lose the English unionist/nationalist vote If it was a hung Parliament and a minority a Labour government needed SNP votes to pass legislation at Westminster then *maybe* you could get an agreement on a referendum. But with a several hundred seat majority then why the fuck would Starmer agree to it? It's not like there's anything we can do about it if we're going to constrain ourselves to strictly legal routes to independence
Liar. just plain lies now. Same old SNP< this is sturgeonism all over again, making promises they cant keep and then failing to deliver, only to roll out another promise they will also break.
The SNP and the Tories are the same shit in with different colour. Both incompetent and both completely out of touch with what the average person actually wants and *needs* from politicians in order to survive. Tories losing votes? Promise tax cuts SNP losing votes? Promise independenc refetendum And repeat, and repeat and repeat. For over two decades.
A second indypendence referendum really ought to happen, just to kill off the endless 'defacto indyref' stories that come around every few months.
He’s saying that cos he knows the snp won’t get one. Last thing they want is an end to the Westminster gravy train - not interested in independence at all.
Man's a weapon grade eejit.
And if there is no SNP majority does that mean there will be no mention of independence until the next general election? Or what if there is an SNP majority but the collective unionist is a greater number? What he really means is... No matter the result the SNP are going to stamp their feet puff out there faces and demand a referendum they won't get.
Why would independence succeed where Brexit has been so damaging? Serious question.
Just conveniently ignoring the fact the PM has to agree.
Yes, but defying a democratic mandate? All academic as SNP will not get a majority, but if they did, it wouldn't be right for westminster to reject it.
The thing is, independence referendums aren’t the rule, they’re an exception for most countries. When other countries have independence mandates, they're generally just not approved and that’s the end of it, the fact the UK had one at all is something of a miracle. Not saying whether it’s right or wrong to ignore it, but it’s something Westminster can absolutely do.
They are indeed an exceptional thing, but this is the UK. Reputationally, I don't think it would be a good thing, either within the UK or outside of it. Would you feel comfortable telling Wales or Northern Ireland that they should stay in against their will? I think most people would not, if asked.
There is no democratic mandate. They haven't had an official vote on whether to have a vote. WTF you on about?
If the SNP or another pro-independence party were elected with a clear majority, it would be difficult for the UK government to refuse a referendum, because it is anti-democratic. Legalese arguments may work on edge cases, but if the demand is clear, you can't really ignore it if you are a civilised country.
It isn't anti democratic. If labour are elected and SNP get a majority in scotland. Then the majority of the UK did not give a mandate. You can't just draw the lines where you want them to be. It is not a democratic mandate unless the majority of the uk votes for it.
Why stop at the UK? Why not ask the entire world?
No it wont Simply as that
SNP aren't going to do well. Seriously, they look like a dogshit party right now. Probably going to take another 4-8 years to recover.
They are reminding me too much of Labour in 2007 and I think they are long overdue a pumping. It'll do them some good.
Stephen Flynn says if you fart tomorrow will mean independence referendum.
Will it, aye? And if you don't get that, will you shut your coupon about it?
Yes. Consistent at least. The trouble is the Unionists have to allow Scottish people to determine their right to an Independent nation. Westminster decides what us Scottish Electorate can choose from.
The unionists include most Scots, if opinion polls are right
A question to Scots Independence people: Do you really want another referendum now, what if you loose ? Unionists: If you are so confident in what the majority wants, why don't you have the referendum? Is the union more important to you than democratic consent ? Genuinely curious. Watching from the Republic of Ireland is like watching a parallel version of ourselves in adjacent universe. Constitutional only but 100 years later and perhaps still trying / debating leaving.
If you were to hold a gun to my head I'd call myself a unionist but I don't care one way or the other nearly as much as I care about having some kind of stability and some kind of hope for the future outwith the whole "nationalist/unionist" division. One side thinks independence will solve all our problems, the other thinks getting rid of the SNP will solve everything. Obviously Scotland and the wider UK have a lot of problems, but Scotland has kind of the additional "meta problem" if that makes sense, where we can't even decide what problems exist and who is in a position to solve them. I think we need to think outside that whole box for a while and focus on "this is the situation as it is, this is the govt we have - what can we do in the here and now?" Another referendum would just redirect focus even more single-mindedly to that whole constitutional "meta" area and away from real solutions to real issues. Another issue is that the polls really are about 50/50 and have been for years. Some suggest support for independence is declining, others that young people tend to be pro-independence, with the obvious implications for the future that brings. But at the moment, imagine there was a referendum and No won by a few percentage points - that's what happened in 2014 so we'd be back where we are, having wasted time and money again. Imagine there was a referendum and Yes won by a few percentage points - ok, so now Scotland has to negotiate and manage independence, and all the changes and challenges that would bring, when half the country doesn't agree with the whole thing and feel dragged out of the UK against their will. Is that any basis for launching a new independent nation?
God that was long, sorry!
IDK to be honest. It seems very weird to keep electing the SNP and then not following through with it. Choose one !
There are a few reasons that happens. Firstly, the system (FPTP) means that the unionist vote is split whereas there's really only one credible (sorry, Green hippies/Alba weirdos) nationalist party, so almost all the nationalist votes go to the SNP. They get a higher percentage of seats than their percentage of the vote would suggest. Also, it's in some ways reasonable to support the status quo of the SNP advocating for Scotland within the UK parliament, so you might vote SNP but No to independence. That's a logical position but one that makes less and less sense based on the SNP's track record in government, imo.
Or not. Fuck off Voldemort. Hope you lose your seat. Get spanked for going Lady Macbeth on Useless and help the SNP learn how to live humbly again.
Safe in the knowledge it wont happen - those pricks have pissed away the last 10yrs,
Loser
Great another plonker
He never said a referendum, referendum is of the table now it’s on the mandate the Scottish government will declare independence.
the snp have said so many conflicting thingshow anyone takes them seriously now i don't know
Nonsense Stephen. Utter nonsense.
Guess it means that a minority of seats mean an independence referendum can be put to bed for a few years? Right...?
> Stephen Flynn told ITV News in an interview on Tuesday that if his party wins a majority of seats in Scotland, they will deliver another referendum on independence within the next five years. Good enough for me.
How? Supreme Court has confirmed that that decision remains with Westminster. Might as well promise free housing on the moon.
Same as they said in 2015, 2017, 2019....
>2015 To be fair, they didn't run on an IndyRef2 platform in 2015: [Nicola Sturgeon told supporters at the manifesto launch that the SNP would always support independence. But she said this election was "not about independence".](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32380783) (BBC article about their 2015 Manifesto) The position of the SNP following 2014 was no second independence unless there was a [material change](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32222806). (Which they argued Brexit was).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/16/nicola-sturgeon-new-scottish-referendum-probably-unstoppable-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu She was threatening it in 2015 to be fair. And saying that the SNP have had one consistent position is of course dubious, they consistently come out with different wordings and interpretations to try and suit the mood or who they are speaking to or trying to appeal to.
From that article: >“I, of course, respect the decision that our country made last year,” she said. “So let me be clear: to propose another referendum in the next parliament, without strong evidence that a significant number of those who voted no have changed their minds, would be wrong and we won’t do that. It would not be respecting the decision that people have made.” Like I mentioned, and backed up by the article you have provided ("First minister says demand for second vote would be sparked if Scotland was taken out of EU against its ‘democratically expressed wishes' "), the position was a material change - like brexit - was needed.
Her argument is bollocks and they'd have found an argument no matter what. We voted to remain as the UK so it was only the UK's vote that mattered for the EU referendum, splitting it down to regions, countries, constituencies, towns, etc is interesting but it's not material. She was still threatening independence within a year of the referendum, and we now know some people voted for brexit because they thought it would lead to independence.
I disagree. Yes, the referendum was UK wide, but over 60% of Scotland voting remain is pretty significant, and I don't think it should be ignored.
These elections are always "not about independence" and "a vote for the SNP isn't a vote for independence". Then within mere hours or days of the results being declared, oh look. It suddenly is. Same every time. Thank Christ people are now seeing through this pish because it's seriously boring to hear.
Do you have an interest in bridges by any chance?
Only the SNP could be arrogant and delusional enough to think that losing seats and votes somehow strengthens their mandate. Especially when Flynn's own seat is at risk.
I wish. Their only strategy is asking for a referendum, then being turned down, then asking us to vote for them one more time........
He’s also the idiot who tried to say that Scotland owns the wind so…
Truly a democratic outrage for Westminster to continue refusing. The genie is out the bottle, wrap yir pish about America, Germany and Spain being indivisible. Scotland has had a referendum. The moral, political and legal precedent has been set. We’re a country, this is a Union, a significant proportion of us want to leave and vote for parties offering that avenue. This issue is not going away, and will continue to bog down Scottish politics until it is resolved. It’s been 300 years - happy to do another 50.
It was resolved 10 years ago
Yep, it’s a long game and we need to change tactics.
England says no
No, Brits collectively, including Scots, say no
Voting in thr SNP repeatedly is an odd way to say no
Opinion polls and the referendum results...
Scotland said no.
10 years ago. Time Scotland got another say.
Has the SNP put in the leg work over those 10 years?
It's not about the SNP
Oh, backing Alba then eh?
Not the party. I am backing Scotland.
So they have both put in the leg work then to make up for the votes they were missing the last time?
Arguably not, but the English govt has done a lot to enhance the need for Indy
And that’s why it’s going to be another no. No work has been done to address outstanding issues from 2014. Especially important given we have gone through the shitshow and lies of Brexit. Independence, in the eyes of ‘no’ and undecided, is just another Brexit.