Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

I wonder if there is a reality in the no camp that they can't get away with that again. Those that are in that agre bracket now, are young enough to remember the lies of 2014. 

 

I do still firmly believe that the SNP/Yes camp needs to target pensioners as the demographic most needing convinced. Once that can be increased by 10-20% (from a starting base of 29%) which isn't a huge ask, the polls WILL flip into consistent yes majorities. 

 

The Union is lost to those under 40. Christ, I dare say the lionshare of those under 25 still backing the union can be found at Ibrox most saturdays. 80% is an overwhelming majority. 

.

Edited May 5 by Malinga the Swinga

[AyrJambo]

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

So how are they defined for dealing with this divisive question?  And how will that both deal with the immediate question and prevent ongoing division and rancour?

 

Anyone questioning the integrity or validity of an independent People's Republic of Scotland would be rounded up and sent to the facilities for political re-education in Falkirk 🙂

 

Seriously though valid questions

I don't have all the answers either

The constitutions of most countries have anti-secession safeguards built in but I don't think there are many examples of new states having to worry about internal factions agitating for reunification with the political entity they have just escaped from!

Perhaps some of the Balkan states have particular constitutional reference to Yugoslavia?

I don't know

 

It would have to be something that is debated and defined in the process of enacting the constitution itself and I hope that would involve consultation and debate across all strands of Scottish society

 

What I do know is that anyone who is currently a UK subject living in Scotland at the time of independence would be entitled to Scottish citizenship in addition to their current UK status and presumably the UK (or what's left of it) would allow that duality also

Those who chose at that point to retain their UK status but not to embrace Scottish citizenship might find that may restrict their participation in future constitutional questions

 

 

[OTT]

4 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Can't away with that again! The Yes camp have nothing apart from bitterness to sustain their campaign and nobody bar the feckless and stupid buy it. 

Carry on believing that independence is just round the corner if you want but you are only fooling yourselves.

 

I'm talking about the figures around the polling. 

 

Polls are weighted so as to provide an accurate sample which reflects the make up of Scottish society. E.g. if 10% of Scots are 18-25 then 10% of those polled will be 18-25. However, Scotland has an aging population which means basically that when the polls are weighted, older people make up a higher proportion of the sample size to accurately reflect Scotland. 

 

This means that despite Yes dominating amongst the youth into early middle ages, the No camp have the edge essentially because pensioners back the union in their droves. That isn't a sustainable position because there isn't a long term to their vote. 

 

If I was a rabid Unionist, I'd be pretty concerned that only about 1 in 5 folk under 25 actually support the Union. It suggests to me that rather than bitterness sustaining our campaign for an Independent nation, we actually have hope and optimism behind us. The status quo offers none of that because there is no optimism around the Union. We're not on a path to anything within the UK. Just more of the same austerity and decling living standards in a broken brexit britain. 

[AyrJambo]

30 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I'm talking about the figures around the polling. 

 

Polls are weighted so as to provide an accurate sample which reflects the make up of Scottish society. E.g. if 10% of Scots are 18-25 then 10% of those polled will be 18-25. However, Scotland has an aging population which means basically that when the polls are weighted, older people make up a higher proportion of the sample size to accurately reflect Scotland. 

 

This means that despite Yes dominating amongst the youth into early middle ages, the No camp have the edge essentially because pensioners back the union in their droves. That isn't a sustainable position because there isn't a long term to their vote. 

 

If I was a rabid Unionist, I'd be pretty concerned that only about 1 in 5 folk under 25 actually support the Union. It suggests to me that rather than bitterness sustaining our campaign for an Independent nation, we actually have hope and optimism behind us. The status quo offers none of that because there is no optimism around the Union. We're not on a path to anything within the UK. Just more of the same austerity and decling living standards in a broken brexit britain. 

 

Good post

[Ulysses]

38 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

If I was a rabid Unionist, I'd be pretty concerned that only about 1 in 5 folk under 25 actually support the Union.  

 

I take it you typed "committed" but your pesky autocorrect changed it to "rabid".  Same kind of stuff happens to me all the time.

 

If I were a committed nationalist, I'd be concerned that people tend to change their minds and become more conservative about the Union as they get older, and they tend to vote in bigger numbers.

[Ulysses]

53 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Anyone questioning the integrity or validity of an independent People's Republic of Scotland would be rounded up and sent to the facilities for political re-education in Falkirk 🙂

 

Seriously though valid questions

I don't have all the answers either

The constitutions of most countries have anti-secession safeguards built in but I don't think there are many examples of new states having to worry about internal factions agitating for reunification with the political entity they have just escaped from!

Perhaps some of the Balkan states have particular constitutional reference to Yugoslavia?

I don't know

 

It would have to be something that is debated and defined in the process of enacting the constitution itself and I hope that would involve consultation and debate across all strands of Scottish society

 

What I do know is that anyone who is currently a UK subject living in Scotland at the time of independence would be entitled to Scottish citizenship in addition to their current UK status and presumably the UK (or what's left of it) would allow that duality also

Those who chose at that point to retain their UK status but not to embrace Scottish citizenship might find that may restrict their participation in future constitutional questions

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that, which sets out a pretty clear picture of how you think things could go post-independence.  Of course, there's also the question of what process enables you to get to that point in the first place.  As I said previously, I'm not expecting any individual here to design a process to debate and possibly enact major constitutional reform in their spare time on a Sunday evening.  But somebody ought to design a process, IMO, because the alternative seems to be a combination of political stasis and antagonism.

 

Edited May 5 by Ulysses

[Cranston]

47 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I'm talking about the figures around the polling. 

 

Polls are weighted so as to provide an accurate sample which reflects the make up of Scottish society. E.g. if 10% of Scots are 18-25 then 10% of those polled will be 18-25. However, Scotland has an aging population which means basically that when the polls are weighted, older people make up a higher proportion of the sample size to accurately reflect Scotland. 

 

This means that despite Yes dominating amongst the youth into early middle ages, the No camp have the edge essentially because pensioners back the union in their droves. That isn't a sustainable position because there isn't a long term to their vote. 

 

If I was a rabid Unionist, I'd be pretty concerned that only about 1 in 5 folk under 25 actually support the Union. It suggests to me that rather than bitterness sustaining our campaign for an Independent nation, we actually have hope and optimism behind us. The status quo offers none of that because there is no optimism around the Union. We're not on a path to anything within the UK. Just more of the same austerity and decling living standards in a broken brexit britain. 

Your post is full of soundbites, with very little substance. For example, you soundbite 'broken brexit britain, added in with austerity, declining living standards etc. However, there are jobs aplenty for those who want to work, generous benefits system, wages are growing - a bus driver for LB can earn over 36k a year for instance, plenty of food available etc etc etc. 

 

How would the hope and optimism be borne out in reality, it would be worthwhile if you put meat on the bone so to speak?

 

What we have seen is broken Scotland, with its devolved government in absolute chaos, with Labour set to be installed at Westminster in due course, and take seats from the snp due to its incompetence and meltdown. 

 

Pray tell?

 

 

[AyrJambo]

33 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Thanks for that, which sets out a pretty clear picture of how you think things could go post-independence.  Of course, there's also the question of what process enables you to get to that point in the first place.  As I said previously, I'm not expecting any individual here to design a process to debate and possibly enact major constitutional reform in their spare time on a Sunday evening.  But somebody ought to design a process, IMO, because the alternative seems to be a combination of political stasis and antagonism.

 

 

I hope you are not referring to the first line!!

😄

 

The process to get there is being considered...

 

There is the S30 transfer of powers under the Scotland Act process

Personally I think that is dead now but that is what the SNP (and Alba) are still wedded to

I don't think the Greens have ever given it any thought

 

There is the de facto referendum process which posits that any and all elections should have a constitutional element, whereby those parties favouring independence include a manifesto commitment that a vote for them is a vote to hold a referendum on independence

A variation on this is Ash Regan's Referendum Bill, rejected by the SNP when she was still a member but which seems (without the detail being known) to be a kind of rolling S30 transfer of powers

Both of these  are inherently flawed since they concede that Westminster is sovereign when it is not and that any referendum arising out of either of these will be conducted by the British state and under the Scotland Act, will be advisory referenda only (as was the 2014 referendum) and not actually binding 

 

A further variation is a process which does respect the sovereignty of the Scottish people

All pro-independence parties stand on a manifesto commitment that a vote for them is a vote to end the union

So an electorate backed UDI with a subsequent confirmatory referendum held in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament (or other Constitutional body as yet to be incorporated) without Westminster or UK media interference, and in my opinion, without any campaigning by political parties not wholly registered and funded in Scotland

 

Currently ISP are the only political party not conceding Scottish sovereignty to Westminster

 

https://www.isp.scot/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ISP-Manifesto-2023-1.pdf

 

As far as the constitution itself goes there are parts of the Independence movement looking at this

 

https://salvo.scot/scottish-constitution/

Edited May 5 by AyrJambo

[OTT]

36 minutes ago, Cranston said:

Your post is full of soundbites, with very little substance. For example, you soundbite 'broken brexit britain, added in with austerity, declining living standards etc. However, there are jobs aplenty for those who want to work, generous benefits system, wages are growing - a bus driver for LB can earn over 36k a year for instance, plenty of food available etc etc etc. 

 

How would the hope and optimism be borne out in reality, it would be worthwhile if you put meat on the bone so to speak?

 

What we have seen is broken Scotland, with its devolved government in absolute chaos, with Labour set to be installed at Westminster in due course, and take seats from the snp due to its incompetence and meltdown. 

 

Pray tell?

 

 

 

Its got one sound bite in it, but it does illustrate how ****ed the UK actually is. If you're going to stick your head in the sand and claim everything is dandy, then I really don't have much I can say. 

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

I'm talking about the figures around the polling. 

 

Polls are weighted so as to provide an accurate sample which reflects the make up of Scottish society. E.g. if 10% of Scots are 18-25 then 10% of those polled will be 18-25. However, Scotland has an aging population which means basically that when the polls are weighted, older people make up a higher proportion of the sample size to accurately reflect Scotland. 

 

This means that despite Yes dominating amongst the youth into early middle ages, the No camp have the edge essentially because pensioners back the union in their droves. That isn't a sustainable position because there isn't a long term to their vote. 

 

If I was a rabid Unionist, I'd be pretty concerned that only about 1 in 5 folk under 25 actually support the Union. It suggests to me that rather than bitterness sustaining our campaign for an Independent nation, we actually have hope and optimism behind us. The status quo offers none of that because there is no optimism around the Union. We're not on a path to anything within the UK. Just more of the same austerity and decling living standards in a broken brexit britain. 

 

The thing to remember is that folk tend to become more conservative the older they get as they acquire dependents and material goods that need protecting. Therefore, it is erroneous to think that the younger demographic will merely get older but hold the same views, displacing the older generation with their opposite views. if that were the case, we would all be voting left-wing and independence would have been a scoot. The younger generation of today will most probably have the same views as the older generation have now when they get to their age. Sitting back and merely waiting for younger people to get older won't work as a strategy.

[Cranston]

20 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Its got one sound bite in it, but it does illustrate how ****ed the UK actually is. If you're going to stick your head in the sand and claim everything is dandy, then I really don't have much I can say. 

Why don't you, have a go at informing, how good post independent Scotland would be, and how it would work in reality? 

 

Who would be your first choice of President for instance?

[Spellczech]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ah.  Does that mean you didn't mean it?  Or that you did mean it but you can't justify it?

it means you did not reply to the post, You quoted just one paragraph from the post and you replied to one sentence from the paragraph you quoted. ie You totally disregarded the context and sense of what I said and wrote about 3 paragraphs of nonsense as a result...

[OTT]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

The thing to remember is that folk tend to become more conservative the older they get as they acquire dependents and material goods that need protecting. Therefore, it is erroneous to think that the younger demographic will merely get older but hold the same views, displacing the older generation with their opposite views. if that were the case, we would all be voting left-wing and independence would have been a scoot. The younger generation of today will most probably have the same views as the older generation have now when they get to their age. Sitting back and merely waiting for younger people to get older won't work as a strategy.

 

Of course, but its a bit more complicated than the current generation of 18-25 year olds dropping to 29% support when they themselves hit 65+ - There will no doubt be some drop off, but I find it hard to believe that it would be as significant as it currently is. Ultimately what is needed is a slight boost to the 

 

It would be interesting to get the data behind the age break down and then play about with slight tweaks to the over 65 category (without completely, a 5% increase to yes, 10% and so on).

 

I do agree, and have posted as much that the SNP/ wider Yes movement need to figure out how to reach older voters. There will be factors that drive their support for the Union - The Queen, the media they consume, nostalgia, then brass and tack factors like a lack of a convincing economic arguement, not enough clarity on pensions. But I don't believe the Yes movement has done anything to try and breakdown what is driving support, how the demographic can be segmented down further, and what areas might be open to persuasion. 

 

I firmly believe that Sturgeon spent too long cultivating the youth vote. I cannot think of a single flagship policy of hers which reached old to older voters - The baby box and Scottish Child Payment were obviously geared at young families, and whilst noble, don't do anything to reach the problem demographic of pensioners for getting polls flipped to consistent pro yes majorities. 

[OTT]

4 minutes ago, Cranston said:

Why don't you, have a go at informing, how good post independent Scotland would be, and how it would work in reality? 

 

Who would be your first choice of President for instance?

 

Look, I'm trying to have a fairly open conversation, but I don't have the mental bandwidth for "your post is just soundbites" and then "tell me how good a post independent Scotland would be", that topic has been done to death, and just aggrevates both sides. You want an example, look at any small European nation, Ireland or Denmark for example. If we follow the Irish model, the President need only be a prominant Scot who could be held up as an example of our values. If we follow a political model, we have no idea which politicians would be in the fray for it, heres one you probably will agree with - Anyone but ****ing Sturgeon. 

[Cranston]

3 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Look, I'm trying to have a fairly open conversation, but I don't have the mental bandwidth for "your post is just soundbites" and then "tell me how good a post independent Scotland would be", that topic has been done to death, and just aggrevates both sides. You want an example, look at any small European nation, Ireland or Denmark for example. If we follow the Irish model, the President need only be a prominant Scot who could be held up as an example of our values. If we follow a political model, we have no idea which politicians would be in the fray for it, heres one you probably will agree with - Anyone but ****ing Sturgeon. 

A prominent Scot for President. Irish model, small European nation. 

 

 

 

[OTT]

2 minutes ago, Cranston said:

A prominent Scot for President. Irish model, small European nation. 

 

 

 

 

Do you see why I didn't bother with your original post? You've got nothing worthwhile to offer. 

 

Locking us into a Union where a Prime Minister that can't even outlast a ****ing lettuce can collapse the housing market in weeks absolutely crippling mortgage repayments. Thats worth defending 🤡

[Cranston]

Just now, OTT said:

 

Do you see why I didn't bother with your original post? You've got nothing worthwhile to offer. 

 

Locking us into a Union where a Prime Minister that can't even outlast a ****ing lettuce can collapse the housing market in weeks absolutely crippling mortgage repayments. Thats worth defending 🤡

Mate, you gave me a much needed laugh out loud. Cheers.

 

Enjoy your night.

 

👍

[Boof]

7 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

There should be an agreement that either either side needs to get 60 plus 

 

So 55% isn't enough to consider the matter closed?

[AyrJambo]

25 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

So 55% isn't enough to consider the matter closed?

 

Nice try! 👍

 

The Big Bumper Book of Justifiable Unionist Hypocrisy will be getting feverishly consulted to find the bit that says...

 

"any questioning of thresholds for a Yes vote should be countered by insisting that a change from the status quo needs to meet a higher threshold"

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

 

I hope you are not referring to the first line!!

😄

 

Of course not.  You didn't mention Blair Drummond.

 

 

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

The process to get there is being considered...

 

There is the S30 transfer of powers under the Scotland Act process

Personally I think that is dead now but that is what the SNP (and Alba) are still wedded to

I don't think the Greens have ever given it any thought

 

Is that more devolution?  I've often wondered why the option of increased devolution of powers was never pursued following the 2014 referendum.

 

 

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

 

There is the de facto referendum process which posits that any and all elections should have a constitutional element, whereby those parties favouring independence include a manifesto commitment that a vote for them is a vote to hold a referendum on independence

A variation on this is Ash Regan's Referendum Bill, rejected by the SNP when she was still a member but which seems (without the detail being known) to be a kind of rolling S30 transfer of powers

Both of these  are inherently flawed since they concede that Westminster is sovereign when it is not and that any referendum arising out of either of these will be conducted by the British state and under the Scotland Act, will be advisory referenda only (as was the 2014 referendum) and not actually binding 

 

Whether or nor Westminster is sovereign is a technical issue - a very relevant technical issue, I don't dispute, but a technical one for all that.  There was a popular vote to leave in 2014, and the people voted to stay.  So regardless of the technical issues, they declared their "settled will" as it was at the time.  The question I'm asking is about giving good space in the right way for a society-wide debate about whether or not its time to change that "settled will".  Getting the technical and legal issues right is necessary, but it's only valuable if it helps that political debate take place.

 

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

 

A further variation is a process which does respect the sovereignty of the Scottish people

All pro-independence parties stand on a manifesto commitment that a vote for them is a vote to end the union

So an electorate backed UDI with a subsequent confirmatory referendum held in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament (or other Constitutional body as yet to be incorporated) without Westminster or UK media interference, and in my opinion, without any campaigning by political parties not wholly registered and funded in Scotland

 

 

Two questions cross my mind on that approach, because it looks a bit "clunky" as a political process. 

 

From an outside observer's detached and objective point of view, how would he/she know if Scotland had successfully become independent by the use of that process?  Conversely, how would he/she know if Scotland had not?

 

Those are very generic questions, but I'm chasing after what you might call the key performance indicators.  At a Westminster General Election, I'll know a party has won if they get 326 seats or more.  How do I know if the electorate has backed a unilateral declaration of independence?   If I do know that, how do I know the outcome of a confirmatory referendum?  What's the question?  What are the voting options?

 

I've left to one side the conditions you've listed for a confirmatory referendum, because they're more relevant to how people with different viewpoints would like processes to be run rather than what the processes should be.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

it means you did not reply to the post, You quoted just one paragraph from the post and you replied to one sentence from the paragraph you quoted. ie You totally disregarded the context and sense of what I said and wrote about 3 paragraphs of nonsense as a result...

 

So you did mean it, and you can't justify it.  Just say that, eh?

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Cranston said:

 

Who would be your first choice of President for instance?

 

If Scotland were independent, would there not just be some kind of nomination and election process? The Irish President is a mostly ceremonial job, and has very limited powers. Candidates for the Presidency can be nominated by 20 members of Parliament or by 4 local authorities.  Outgoing Presidents can also nominate themselves if they haven't reached their term limit.  If there's more than one nominee an election is held to decide the winner.  If there's only one nominee an election isn't held.

 

I'm not saying whether Scotland should or shouldn't be independent, but if it were, you could probably use a similar system. 

 

Denmark (also mentioned by OTT) has a king and a royal family.  I'm not recommending that approach, unless it's someone like Robbo. 

[Cranston]

6 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

@Nucky Thompson

👍

 

Could be a vote winner.

 

@The Real Maroonblood

 

is  mine though. The use of emojis is superlative. 

[Cranston]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If Scotland were independent, would there not just be some kind of nomination and election process? The Irish President is a mostly ceremonial job, and has very limited powers. Candidates for the Presidency can be nominated by 20 members of Parliament or by 4 local authorities.  Outgoing Presidents can also nominate themselves if they haven't reached their term limit.  If there's more than one nominee an election is held to decide the winner.  If there's only one nominee an election isn't held.

 

I'm not saying whether Scotland should or shouldn't be independent, but if it were, you could probably use a similar system. 

 

Denmark (also mentioned by OTT) has a king and a royal family.  I'm not recommending that approach, unless it's someone like Robbo. 

Would they have to undergo a Criminal Records Check? 

 

 

[AyrJambo]

4 minutes ago, Cranston said:

👍

 

Could be a vote winner.

 

@The Real Maroonblood

 

is  mine though. The use of emojis is superlative. 

 

Got to be @JudyJudyJudy no?

The seat of the pants international relations ride would be exhilarating

[Cranston]

1 minute ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Got to be @JudyJudyJudy no?

The seat of the pants international relations ride would be exhilarating

😃

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Is that more devolution?  I've often wondered why the option of increased devolution of powers was never pursued following the 2014 referendum.

 

Kind of

A Section 30 Order under the Scotland Act temporarily transfers, or devolves, to Holyrood, the authority to hold a referendum

As a devolved parliament the SP has no powers to seek further devolution of powers

The infamous "VOW" conjured up by Gordon Brown and the Daily Record in the final week of the referendum campaign promised more powers but was never delivered on

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Whether or nor Westminster is sovereign is a technical issue - a very relevant technical issue, I don't dispute, but a technical one for all that.  There was a popular vote to leave in 2014, and the people voted to stay.  So regardless of the technical issues, they declared their "settled will" as it was at the time.  The question I'm asking is about giving good space in the right way for a society-wide debate about whether or not its time to change that "settled will".  Getting the technical and legal issues right is necessary, but it's only valuable if it helps that political debate take place.

 

The 2014 referendum was advisory so even had Yes won there was never a binding requirement for Westminster to implement the result

Yes didn't win but there are many who question the fear tactics employed by the Better Together campaign and the franchise used for the referendum itself (local authority franchise which included those who were transient but had an address in Scotland)

And the "vow" mentioned above which flew in the face of the rule stating that the government and other public bodies should not make announcements or publish information relevant to the vote in the period (28 days) running up to polling day

So the "settled will" is still up for debate but the wider debate is taking place across many platforms, bodies, civic Scotland, political parties, blogs and forums , this one included

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Two questions cross my mind on that approach, because it looks a bit "clunky" as a political process. 

 

From an outside observer's detached and objective point of view, how would he/she know if Scotland had successfully become independent by the use of that process?  Conversely, how would he/she know if Scotland had not?

 

Those are very generic questions, but I'm chasing after what you might call the key performance indicators.  At a Westminster General Election, I'll know a party has won if they get 326 seats or more.  How do I know if the electorate has backed a unilateral declaration of independence?   If I do know that, how do I know the outcome of a confirmatory referendum?  What's the question?  What are the voting options?

 

I've left to one side the conditions you've listed for a confirmatory referendum, because they're more relevant to how people with different viewpoints would like processes to be run rather than what the processes should be.

 

You would know if Scotland had voted to become independent if the parties advocating independence and stating in their manifestos that a vote for them is a vote to end the union, won the election(s)

 

Winning means:

Most Scottish seats in a Westminster GE since that is how winning is defined in those elections

Most seats in a Holyrood election since that is how winning is defined in those elections

 

Since the issue is of constitutional import either of those wins would not be enough since other issues are at play during elections

So a confirmatory referendum would be needed to err.... confirm that the electorate wants to end the union

 

Appendix II of the Stirling Directive sets out the requirements for a referendum much better than I could:

 

https://stirlingdirective.scot/docs/Full-Stirling-Directive.pdf

 

Appendix II: A True, Constitutional Referendum
 A proper constitutional referendum must be binary. There can be
only two options.
 The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable. That is to
say, they must be two quite different options and not merely two
variations on the same thing. Both options must be tightly defined
at the outset and may not change in the course of the referendum
campaign. What is voted on must be what has initially been
proposed.
 Both options must be deliverable in the sense that the winning
option and the actions which ensue from it must be implementable
immediately and without further process.
 To satisfy the previous criteria, the referendum must be on the
question of whether to end the Union with England-as-Britain.
 The legislation authorising and regulating the referendum must be
determinative and self-executing
 The outcome must be acknowledged by all involved as an
expression of the democratic will of the sovereign people of
Scotland and therefore binding on all parties.
 It should also be understood and acknowledged that the outcome
of one constitutional referendum cannot preclude future
campaigning for other constitutional change even where such
change would alter or obviate the prior choice.
 The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The
franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria
for residency within Scotland. Registering a vote must be made as
easy as possible but with due regard for security and
confidentiality.
Stirling Directive 22.7.23
7
 The referendum must be held under the auspices of the Scottish
Parliament with oversight and services provided exclusively by
Scottish institutions and agencies. Every effort must be made to
eliminate or at least minimise external interference.
 For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the
question of the Union, the British state shall be classified as an
external (foreign) power.
 For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the
question of the Union, political parties registered as such and
headquartered other than in Scotland shall be regarded as
agencies of the country where they are registered and
headquartered.
Summary
A true constitutional referendum is binary, with options which are
discrete, defined and deliverable.
It must be entirely made and managed in Scotland by Scotland's
democratic institutions.
It must produce a clear decision and not merely a result.
The authorising and regulating legislation must be determinative and
self-executing.
It must meet internationally recognised standards for a democratic
event.
It is the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of selfdetermination.
The outcome is the expressed will of the sovereign people of Scotland
which none may deny.
 

 

Edited May 5 by AyrJambo

[luckydug]

7 hours ago, Gizmo said:

I'll tell you what was abuse imo was Labour & Tory reps going into care homes and to the homes of vulnerable OAPs to worry them into voting NO using the dishonest claim that their pensions would stop in the event of a YES vote. 

One of many lies peddled by the Stockholm syndrome lab-con coalition to stoke fear into boomers. 

Good point. 👍 

[AyrJambo]

5 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

If it were in my power I’d grant independence just to stop you posting  

 

😄

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

😄

 

I'd grant you independence just to stop Jim posting. 

 

No, wait, that's not how it works.  

 

 

 

 

[AyrJambo]

McCormick bottles it

 

https://archive.is/iJaEn

[AyrJambo]

34 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

If it were in my power I’d grant independence just to stop you posting  

 

But you should know by now that independence is not something which can be granted

 

Just sayin...🙂

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

 

😄

 

Thanks for that earlier post, which told me a lot of stuff I didn't know.  There's a lot to reflect on, but hopefully I'll get back with something constructive later on.

[jack D and coke]

19 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

There should be an agreement that either either side needs to get 60 plus 

So 55-45 wasn’t close but Yes needs to get 60?

Edited May 6 by jack D and coke

[hughesie27]

13 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

So 55-45 wasn’t close but Yes needs to get 60?

🤣

[Hagar the Horrible]

That McCorr-mick  wanted to abolish tax and we all pay rent based on the land we own??????  I would rather restore the popular poll tax!

 

well it would be compared to this clowns ideas?  again this is why the SNP and the Greens need to face the ballot box

[Hagar the Horrible]

29 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

🤣

The same should have happened with Brexit, and a decisive figure rather than 50%+1, but the off-set to that it must become law that you must vote.   I would say >55%

[Boab]

17 hours ago, Gizmo said:

Sometimes strong willpower is needed on this forum. 🤐

 

Some of the 'winning' side also trashed Glasgow city centre so even triumphing wasn't enough and the tribalism had to come out. Politics, if this thread and social media is anything to go by, is more and more and more tribal. 'Na na na, our man won, yours lost, dry your tears' is about the size of it and I wouldn't say I'm immune as I enjoy seeing some of the more pompous idiots taken down a peg. Perhaps it also explains the rise of so many populist ***** - parties can just repeat slogans and ignore policies & manifestos, and nobody pays any heed but - aww, look, he has daft hair or says naughty stuff we wish we could say, so lets vote for them!

Frankie Goes to Hollywood nailed it when they stuck Chernenko & Reegan in the ring to fight it out in the Two Tribes video. 

If it wasn't the knowledge of what people living in genuinely authoritarian non-democracies suffer, or the fight many people in this country had to put up to get a vote, I'd do a George Carlin and ignore the entire bloody circus.

I would argue that taking the Carlin approach, which I will do at the next election, is actually using your right in a positive way. No one, as I see it, deserves my vote so I’ll abstain !

Doesn’t seem to bother those arseholes when they refuse to vote !

You want a better system ? Refuse to enable the current, broken, one.

[il Duce McTarkin]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd grant you independence just to stop Jim posting. 

 

 

[Spellczech]

13 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

So you did mean it, and you can't justify it.  Just say that, eh?

you lost me...You went off at a tangent...You want me to justify that a generation is more than 10 years? I'm not here to educate you.

Edited May 6 by Spellczech

[i wish jj was my dad]

14 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

The same should have happened with Brexit, and a decisive figure rather than 50%+1, but the off-set to that it must become law that you must vote.   I would say >55%

Political discourse is toxic enough.  If a 'Yes' vote was unsuccessful because it only delivered a 50 odd % majority we'd just be encouraging the Blair Drummond types to start burning crosses outside the front door of no voters.

 

Westminister needs to start treating Scotland with the respect a partnership of equals implies and Holyrood needs to stop blaming WM for all our ills.  A respectful UKG would go a long way towards convincing the Scottish electorate that we don't need independence and a competent SG that focused on using available devolved powers to improve the quality of life and demonstrate the potential of an independent Scotland. 

 

That's what grown ups in the room would do.  The problem is the arseholery of our politicians just reflects the arseholery of a lot of people with the vote.  Certainly the noisier elements of the electorate.   

 

[Spellczech]

6 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Political discourse is toxic enough.  If a 'Yes' vote was unsuccessful because it only delivered a 50 odd % majority we'd just be encouraging the Blair Drummond types to start burning crosses outside the front door of no voters.

 

Westminister needs to start treating Scotland with the respect a partnership of equals implies and Holyrood needs to stop blaming WM for all our ills.  A respectful UKG would go a long way towards convincing the Scottish electorate that we don't need independence and a competent SG that focused on using available devolved powers to improve the quality of life and demonstrate the potential of an independent Scotland. 

 

That's what grown ups in the room would do.  The problem is the arseholery of our politicians just reflects the arseholery of a lot of people with the vote.  Certainly the noisier elements of the electorate.   

 

Respect works both ways. The SG has no remit for Foreign Policy therefore it should not be pushing censures of Israel or calling for ceasefires in Gaza to try to one-up Westminster...

 

The SG has not done their job for the last year, probably several years...and every time they are called on it they point the finger at Westminster and say they haven't got enough money or enough powers. They have become a bad joke, made worse because the UK Govt is similarly distracted by nonsense like gender regarding transexuals, and little quality or direction and few ideas...

 

Labour are likely to win the next election on a blank manifesto. People will vote for the unknown because they hate the status quo. This is a repeat of Brexit, and thank goodness Scots are not stupid enough to have done the same at both Indy 2014 and Brexit (though it did us no good)

[AyrJambo]

22 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Political discourse is toxic enough.  If a 'Yes' vote was unsuccessful because it only delivered a 50 odd % majority we'd just be encouraging the Blair Drummond types to start burning crosses outside the front door of no voters.

 

Westminister needs to start treating Scotland with the respect a partnership of equals implies and Holyrood needs to stop blaming WM for all our ills.  A respectful UKG would go a long way towards convincing the Scottish electorate that we don't need independence and a competent SG that focused on using available devolved powers to improve the quality of life and demonstrate the potential of an independent Scotland. 

 

That's what grown ups in the room would do.  The problem is the arseholery of our politicians just reflects the arseholery of a lot of people with the vote.  Certainly the noisier elements of the electorate.   

 

 

There has never been any respect and it has never been a partnership of equals

[OTT]

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

The same should have happened with Brexit, and a decisive figure rather than 50%+1, but the off-set to that it must become law that you must vote.   I would say >55%

 

Absolutely not. I think that would be fiddling with democracy. Keeping things simple, although not perfect at least creates a uniform standard which is past/present. 

 

To the yes camp, changing to 55% or anything like that would reek of trying to rig the result. It just wouldn't be acceptable. 

 

People talk about the Brexit result, but the establishment got both campaigns badly wrong - Yes in 2014 grew from 29% to 45%, which although is still a win for the no camp, the following years of Labours annhiliation in Scotland and the demand for Independence of nearly half the country hasn't gone away. Better Together failed to win in a way which put the question to rest, regardless of how Unionists would spin it. Equally, the Cameron government deeply underestimated the feeling about the EU and disastisfaction with it in middle England. 

 

The Establishments inability/failure to approach their campaign in a professional and effective manner isn't reason enough to change established voting practice IMO. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

So 55-45 wasn’t close but Yes needs to get 60?

If an agreement is reached 

[Hagar the Horrible]

Europe never treated the UK with any modicum of respect, The French in particular when there was a Foot & Mouth outbreak, they refused any of our goods, long after it was dealt with, and it was a European problem not just ours.  The Spanish were over fishing our waters.  They played into the hands of Farage and the fears of the public.

 

What should have happened was it became close just to give Europe a bloody nose, and we could have got a deal that helped our traders, our farmers, our fishermen,  But it was a done deal, and we are still not able to make it work, or call for a referendum to re-apply.

 

If we wanted Indy, we would have had it, we tried and failed that in 2014,  If it was ever to succeed then be prepared for 20 years of hardship, No NHS, No pensions, no benefits (state ones).

 

Swinney's job is to preserve the SNP as a power, Indy will be the carrot on a stick, to satisfy the activists, He like Nicola do not want another referendum as it will lose, and render the SNP totally pointless.

[OTT]

Just now, Hagar the Horrible said:

Europe never treated the UK with any modicum of respect, The French in particular when there was a Foot & Mouth outbreak, they refused any of our goods, long after it was dealt with, and it was a European problem not just ours.  The Spanish were over fishing our waters.  They played into the hands of Farage and the fears of the public.

 

What should have happened was it became close just to give Europe a bloody nose, and we could have got a deal that helped our traders, our farmers, our fishermen,  But it was a done deal, and we are still not able to make it work, or call for a referendum to re-apply.

 

If we wanted Indy, we would have had it, we tried and failed that in 2014,  If it was ever to succeed then be prepared for 20 years of hardship, No NHS, No pensions, no benefits (state ones).

 

Swinney's job is to preserve the SNP as a power, Indy will be the carrot on a stick, to satisfy the activists, He like Nicola do not want another referendum as it will lose, and render the SNP totally pointless.

 

I agree with part of what you're saying, the SNP are just in it now for powers sake. Swinney will need to get serious fast about Indy to stop voter apathy, and I do not believe he has the vision to deliver that. 

 

However, I would caution against assuming that the yes camp WILL lose if there is another referendum. David Cameron's hubris brought about brexit in making assumptions. People move over to supporting Independence when it is campaigned for. The lead up to 2014 proved that, and with essentially 6% needed for a win, its far from a done deal. Especially with the lies told by Better Together in 2014, the difficulty to secure a 2nd vote and obviously Brexit - Yes Scotland activists will campaign like a man possessed, because the likelihood of a 3rd bite at the apple is impossible in our lifetime IMO. I wouldn't write off a significant number of voters saying **** it, Anything is better than the current direction of travel. Lets not forget that in 2014, we were still in the EU, so the argument that a no vote secured EU membership was true. Its now not. As of June 2021 there were 231k EU citizens in Scotland, lets think for a moment about what direction they'd vote if the yes camp is saying we will rejoin the EEA and the no camp don't have that carrot anymore? Back in 2014, they were voting in their interests, and I think the same would be true in the next one, only their interests have changed. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

3 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

 

 

People talk about the Brexit result, but the establishment got both campaigns badly wrong - Yes in 2014 grew from 29% to 45%, which although is still a win for the no camp,

But those figures are also spin, it was 37% of the electorate.  It was a referendum based on change, it was down to the proposers to make a case for it, but instead as 55% of those who bothered to vote, still had to get up out of their chairs and care enough to vote against it.  there was 15% of voters who did not vote, so the campaign failed to convince them.  It cannot be spun any other way than they did not want it.  But the 2 big hitters Wee Eck and Wee-er Nicola did not sell the idea to the unconvinced (non-voters) and to the masses in the 55% NO voters who may have changed their minds.

 

It needs to be evidenced that it will work, not get it over the line and we will figure it out as we go....That's what happened to Brexit

 

Swinney is the Status Quo, expect more greiveance politics and blame WM for their failures.

 

The Tories will get hammered by Bland SKS implementing the same bleeding policies, but Penny will take over in the next GE and it will be balanced.  The SNP need wiped out just to preserve balance, they wont be that much of a success in reality but change is paramount.  It will reset the SNP to ither chose to be activist or establishment.  You cant be the protest party when you are in charge,  And Indy2 was never Item 1 on their agenda otherwise they would have spent the last 10 years convincing the rest of us, its a good thing

[Gundermann]

18 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Europe never treated the UK with any modicum of respect, The French in particular when there was a Foot & Mouth outbreak, they refused any of our goods, long after it was dealt with, and it was a European problem not just ours.  The Spanish were over fishing our waters.  They played into the hands of Farage and the fears of the public.

 

What should have happened was it became close just to give Europe a bloody nose, and we could have got a deal that helped our traders, our farmers, our fishermen,  But it was a done deal, and we are still not able to make it work, or call for a referendum to re-apply.

 

If we wanted Indy, we would have had it, we tried and failed that in 2014,  If it was ever to succeed then be prepared for 20 years of hardship, No NHS, No pensions, no benefits (state ones).

 

Swinney's job is to preserve the SNP as a power, Indy will be the carrot on a stick, to satisfy the activists, He like Nicola do not want another referendum as it will lose, and render the SNP totally pointless.

 

Nonsense. Sure, there will always be some 'issues' or friction - I don't doubt the Spanish overfished 'our' waters though equally they weren't chuffed about our criminal classes decanting to the Costa del Crime - but by and large all nations got on well barring the repeated dragging of heals and gurning from Little Englanders. Christ, if the likes of France and Poland can work cordially with Germany despite recent history, then why TF can't the UK?

 

Oh, as to the Indy bit. Yes is still at 50% in the polls, give or take. Support for self-determination has been consistently higher than support for the SNP for some time now. Even before Starmer, there was something like 30% of Labour voters who were pro-indy. There's been a lot of disquiet in the Branch Office recently with Starmer calling the shots over stuff like Gaza and the bill for workers' rights.

Edited May 6 by Gundermann

[OTT]

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

But those figures are also spin, it was 37% of the electorate.  It was a referendum based on change, it was down to the proposers to make a case for it, but instead as 55% of those who bothered to vote, still had to get up out of their chairs and care enough to vote against it.  there was 15% of voters who did not vote, so the campaign failed to convince them.  It cannot be spun any other way than they did not want it.  But the 2 big hitters Wee Eck and Wee-er Nicola did not sell the idea to the unconvinced (non-voters) and to the masses in the 55% NO voters who may have changed their minds.

 

It needs to be evidenced that it will work, not get it over the line and we will figure it out as we go....That's what happened to Brexit

 

Swinney is the Status Quo, expect more greiveance politics and blame WM for their failures.

 

The Tories will get hammered by Bland SKS implementing the same bleeding policies, but Penny will take over in the next GE and it will be balanced.  The SNP need wiped out just to preserve balance, they wont be that much of a success in reality but change is paramount.  It will reset the SNP to ither chose to be activist or establishment.  You cant be the protest party when you are in charge,  And Indy2 was never Item 1 on their agenda otherwise they would have spent the last 10 years convincing the rest of us, its a good thing

 

What are you talking about? The voter turn out was 84.6%, where is 37% coming from - EU referendum? 2014 was 84.6% - which is massive. 

 

I think the referendum in 2014 was a very difficult task but the impact now is that around half the country want Independence, compared to less than a third before. That is huge, and as time goes by I expect that number will rise. Especially if a 2nd referendum can actually be tabled.