Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[JudyJudyJudy]

11 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Which parts of "standing on a manifesto commitment " and "confirmatory referendum" are you not getting

Or wilfully ignoring

Aye right . So they won’t get 50 % then . Besides 50% is far too divisive a “ majority well 51 , as we have seen with Brexit , needs to be 60 plus 

Edited April 24 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

38 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Farting in the wind whilst Humza continues to weaken their support every time he opens his gob 

 

Glorious ! 

 

Oh I know . It’s like me day dreaming about winning the lottery and what I’ll do with the money ! Feels great doing it but then I wake up 

[lost in space]

7 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Not a chance - it's quite safe to book holidays and make plans for a generation or two at least 

But a generation of what - a hamster?  Since Indy supporters wanted a second ref soon after the first, can only have been.

[TallPaul]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

So completely ignoring the fact that a majority prob do not want Indy . How’s that in any form democratic ? 

Will be interesting to see the outcome of the popular vote in the general election. Pro Indy parties v unionist.

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, TallPaul said:

Will be interesting to see the outcome of the popular vote in the general election. Pro Indy parties v unionist.

Yes it will be a good barometer of how Indy is doing ! 

[Jim_Duncan]

3 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

Will be interesting to see the outcome of the popular vote in the general election. Pro Indy parties v unionist.

I think it’s of such low priority to most normal people this year given how much other shite is going on, both at home and abroad, that it’s not a useful barometer at the moment. 

[AyrJambo]

30 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Do you reckon any of the major parties are ballsy enough to put forward such a manifesto commitment?

 

The current SNP no, not under their current leadership

If they take a pounding at GE and change at the top and start listening to members and the wider independence movement who knows?

 

Alba could yet surprise us all and ISP have a generally more open and radical approach to constitutional issues

 

23 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Aye right . So they won’t get 50 % then . Besides 50% is far too divisive a “ majority well 51 , as we have seen with Brexit , needs to be 60 plus 

 

More scattergun JJJ take a breath now and then!!

The requirement for a supermajority in any confirmatory referendum is a valid question as would be the voting franchise, the timing, the campaign funding restrictions (for example no party registered outwith Scotland allowed to campaign), the electoral body with oversight and other questions. All valid and all dbated and decide in Scotland by Scots

 

However it is heartening that you appear to be accepting of the basic premise of a confirmatory referendum and are now just quibbling about some of the mechanics

[BlueRiver]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

So completely ignoring the fact that a majority prob do not want Indy . How’s that in any form democratic ? 

 

He can't seem to grasp that the sovereign will of the Scottish people is to tell him and his nationalist buddies to bolt. 

[TallPaul]

23 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes it will be a good barometer of how Indy is doing ! 

I'm sure they will claim loads of pro Indy voted labour. 

[Boris]

24 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

Will be interesting to see the outcome of the popular vote in the general election. Pro Indy parties v unionist.

 

22 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes it will be a good barometer of how Indy is doing ! 

 

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, or perhaps on the Labour thread(?), if polls are to be believed you see a reduction in support for the SNP, yet support for independence remains consistent.

 

So whilst an SNP collapse at the Westminster GE will be seen as a decline in support for independence, it may not actually be reflective of the real position.

 

What it does do is show that the "de facto" referendum tactic is cobblers.

[Boris]

41 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Aye right . So they won’t get 50 % then . Besides 50% is far too divisive a “ majority well 51 , as we have seen with Brexit , needs to be 60 plus 

 

But 55% is ok?  Supermajority has to work both ways, surely?

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

 

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, or perhaps on the Labour thread(?), if polls are to be believed you see a reduction in support for the SNP, yet support for independence remains consistent.

 

So whilst an SNP collapse at the Westminster GE will be seen as a decline in support for independence, it may not actually be reflective of the real position.

 

What it does do is show that the "de facto" referendum tactic is cobblers.

 

Labour won't offer a referendum though and campaign on a unionist platform. 

 

We'll see where support goes once the Tories are out. 

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

But 55% is ok?  Supermajority has to work both ways, surely?

 

How would that ever work in regards to maintaining a status quo. 

 

Hold them till one breaks 60? 

 

Come on man. 

[Jim_Duncan]

15 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

The current SNP no, not under their current leadership

If they take a pounding at GE and change at the top and start listening to members and the wider independence movement who knows?

 

Alba could yet surprise us all and ISP have a generally more open and radical approach to constitutional issues

Without wishing to be rude, that kind of puts it all to bed. Even if Alba do as you say, they aren't getting the votes. I have no idea who or what the ISP (mine's Vodafone!) is.

 

It would take a radical takeover from within by SNP fringe members which, in turn, would probably make the party implode (although Humza is trying his best to get ahead of the game and do that anyway...).

 

It's a shame the SNP have basically played grievance politics for a decade, rather than listen to the will of the people and do their best to govern with the hand they have. They moan about the divisiveness of Westminster, but have done nothing to counter that in their behaviour at Holyrood, AFAICS. As unpalatable as it may have been, they should be working with the Tories in London (shudder) to make Scotland the best place it can be. Neither side has the remotest interest in serving the people, sadly.

[JudyJudyJudy]

21 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

The current SNP no, not under their current leadership

If they take a pounding at GE and change at the top and start listening to members and the wider independence movement who knows?

 

Alba could yet surprise us all and ISP have a generally more open and radical approach to constitutional issues

 

 

More scattergun JJJ take a breath now and then!!

The requirement for a supermajority in any confirmatory referendum is a valid question as would be the voting franchise, the timing, the campaign funding restrictions (for example no party registered outwith Scotland allowed to campaign), the electoral body with oversight and other questions. All valid and all dbated and decide in Scotland by Scots

 

However it is heartening that you appear to be accepting of the basic premise of a confirmatory referendum and are now just quibbling about some of the mechanics

Not got a problem with a ref at all . In fact if embrace it . However needs to be more than just 51% 

[JudyJudyJudy]

14 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

But 55% is ok?  Supermajority has to work both ways, surely?

Ofcourse . 

[AyrJambo]

On 22/04/2024 at 16:49, Libertarian said:

Independence support 

Feb 2014 - 28%

Sept 2014 - 45%

April 2024 - 52%

 

22 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

He can't seem to grasp that the sovereign will of the Scottish people is to tell him and his nationalist buddies to bolt. 

 

Sovereign will? Bolt?

See above

 

Keep taking the red, white and blue tablets

[AyrJambo]

9 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Without wishing to be rude, that kind of puts it all to bed. Even if Alba do as you say, they aren't getting the votes. I have no idea who or what the ISP (mine's Vodafone!) is.

 

It would take a radical takeover from within by SNP fringe members which, in turn, would probably make the party implode (although Humza is trying his best to get ahead of the game and do that anyway...).

 

It's a shame the SNP have basically played grievance politics for a decade, rather than listen to the will of the people and do their best to govern with the hand they have. They moan about the divisiveness of Westminster, but have done nothing to counter that in their behaviour at Holyrood, AFAICS. As unpalatable as it may have been, they should be working with the Tories in London (shudder) to make Scotland the best place it can be. Neither side has the remotest interest in serving the people, sadly.

 

https://www.isp.scot/

[Konrad von Carstein]

This thread is now a car crash of the usual suspects either trolling and playing to the gallery along with certain posters just being  gigantic 🐓🐓🐓

 

Thread is ruined.

[BlueRiver]

9 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

 

Sovereign will? Bolt?

See above

 

Keep taking the red, white and blue tablets

 

One poll? 

 

Show me the general trends. Stagnated for a decade bud. 

[AyrJambo]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

One poll? 

 

Show me the general trends. Stagnated for a decade bud. 

 

Stagnated yes but at 50 - 50 give or take

So I'd say the sovereign will is as yet undecided

[BlueRiver]

Just now, AyrJambo said:

 

Stagnated yes but at 50 - 50 give or take

So I'd say the sovereign will is as yet undecided

 

Yet you want a party to declare they're a UDI based on what? 

 

You can win the most seats on under 50% as we're all well aware. 

[FWJ]

16 hours ago, AyrJambo said:

 If we take a share of the debt then that comes with a share of the assets..

 

Obviously the immovable real estate here in Scotland, naval bases, airbases, firing ranges, woodland/forestry - any current MOD property in this country

Share of real estate abroad so embassies, consulates and the like

Share of armed forces equipment - it's the British army not the English army and Scotland is one of only two signatories which brought Britain, the state, into being

Share of government real estate and resources including equipment

 

In reality much of this would be negotiated into a cash settlement

If it was down to me I would be asking for reparations as well for all the assets stripped out of Scotland over the last three centuries

 

Of course another option would be to take no asset share in return for no debt share

I suspect negotiations will settle somewhere in the middle

And would we then, in turn, pay reparations for the assets scottish colonists stripped out of Africa, Asia, Australasia and Canada over the last 3 centuries?

[AyrJambo]

3 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Yet you want a party to declare they're a UDI based on what? 

 

You can win the most seats on under 50% as we're all well aware. 

 

Based on winning an election (whether Holyrood or Westminster) under the prevailing electoral rules which with a manifesto stating they will do exactly that

As far as UK GE was concerned it wasn't that long ago (Thatcher, Major) that the accepted bar for Scottish independence was to win the majority of Scottish seats in a UK general election

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

15 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

This thread is now a car crash of the usual suspects either trolling and playing to the gallery along with certain posters just being  gigantic 🐓🐓🐓

 

Thread is ruined.

Close the door on your way out then , my dear . Mind your head 

[AyrJambo]

3 minutes ago, FWJ said:

And would we then, in turn, pay reparations for the assets scottish colonists stripped out of Africa, Asia, Australasia and Canada over the last 3 centuries?

 

You accept that Scotland is a colony then and has been asset-stripped?

[BlueRiver]

Just now, AyrJambo said:

 

Based on winning an election (whether Holyrood or Westminster) under the prevailing electoral rules which with a manifesto stating they will do exactly that

As far as UK GE was concerned it wasn't that long ago (Thatcher, Major) that the accepted bar for Scottish independence was to win the majority of Scottish seats in a UK general election

 

 

So the sovereign will of the Scottish people is expressed via whatever Parliament you fancy depending on where it's achieved as per a comment by a couple of PMs.

 

Good to know. 

 

They could win a majority of seats on about 35% of the popular vote. Utter balls. 

 

Don't reckon you'd even have your 52% April poll figures if this was on offer. 

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, AyrJambo said:

 

You accept that Scotland is a colony then and has been asset-stripped?

 

Help. Help. I'm being oppressed.

[Boris]

46 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

How would that ever work in regards to maintaining a status quo. 

 

Hold them till one breaks 60? 

 

Come on man. 

 

Haha, of course not, but if 51% vote for independence why is that invalid but if 51% vote for the Union that's ok?

[Boris]

48 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Labour won't offer a referendum though and campaign on a unionist platform. 

 

We'll see where support goes once the Tories are out. 

 

I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.

 

Folk do vote differently depending on the election being held, and it may be that people want to see a Labour Govt in Westminster rather than a Tory one.  At this point in time, independence probably isn't the main issue for folk.  Cost of living, NHS etc probably are.

[Konrad von Carstein]

18 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Close the door on your way out then , my dear . Mind your head 

Good idea, saves me having to watch you trying to play kissy catchy with your new pals...

 

 

Edited April 24 by Konrad von Carstein

[FWJ]

12 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

You accept that Scotland is a colony then and has been asset-stripped?

No, I don’t accept that it’s a colony - the “asset-stripping” is hugely difficult to quantify.

While I do think that the usefulness of the Union has come to an end and it’s time for Scotland & England to go their own ways, I wish we’d do it like grown-ups and without the nonsensical and, frankly, condescending ‘oh poor wee Scotland, overrun against our wishes and victimised by big, bad England’.

 

We only entered the Union because our own attempts at Empire-building were so sh:t and once we got access to England and its colonies we were very enthusiastic colonisers.  Glasgow was proud to call itself ‘the second city of the empire’ and your very own Bard of Ayr was all set to become a slave-master in a Caribbean colony.

 

IMHO the time’s up on the Union, but while the going was good England and Scotland were up to our necks in it.

[BlueRiver]

32 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Haha, of course not, but if 51% vote for independence why is that invalid but if 51% vote for the Union that's ok?

 

Because that's how these things work typically. To change the status quo substantially is seen as requiring a larger threshold. 

 

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

The fact is the numbers are clear and the SNP know that, hence why there was no second referendum, Nicola DID NOT want one, it would have lost and been the end of the SNP and her.  (now she is the architect of the her and the SNP's downfall)

 

44.6%  on the turn out  of a high 84.6% voted yes.   But real number is 37.8% of voters.

 

In essence 62.2% did NOT want INDY,  but remarkably 2,001,926 people who did not want this got off their backsieds ands went to the polls to vote NO.

 

There has been two referendums in my lifetime and both failed, but a third will be a success, with Humza in charge?  AYE-RIGHT!

 

So where am I going with this,  the HMP sorry SNP still falsify the actuals by stating it was closer than it was, 44.6% v 55.4%.

 

People just don't want another referendum not for another 20 years, but when there is, and there is a case, a real one not a grievance one, that tactic has become tiresome.  Then to stop it being brought up time and bleeding time again, it needs to be emphatic.  So the next one needs to reach 60% for it to become law,  But if its between 50 and 60% then another should trigger in 20 years automatically, if its less than 50% then it is a wait for 50years minimum, but it must be passed in law that all voters must vote, they do that in Australia.

 

The polls haven't moved, that needle has remained the same even though we have had Brexit, Boris, Truss etc.  People are temporary, Indy is like a puppy for Christmas.  It will chew the furniture and pee all over the place, and need walked everyday, even though the SNP will promise they will do it, you will end up doing it yourself while they are on their XBOX.

 

Indy support still remains, deep down but support for the SNP has diminished, hence the drastic fall in membership, and who will put their hard earned cash into a party that spends it on pots and pans, pens and a campervan?  Whatever the outcome of the Murrells criminal case no matter what will be damaging, to the Party.

 

The country needs two things right now, the Green and SNP divorce.  INDY off the table as P1 for at least 20 years, and concentrate of the Economy first, Transport second, Education/Health joint third, the Environment fourth, everything else Fifth, and Indy bellow picking out belly button fluff.

 

If we get stable and have a government focussing on the day job, not their fantasy, then prosperity with healthy outlook will come.

[JudyJudyJudy]

27 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Good idea, saves me having to watch you trying to play kissy catchy with your new pals...

 

 

Aye I’m not keen on voyeurs 😜

[Boris]

10 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Because that's how these things work typically. To change the status quo substantially is seen as requiring a larger threshold. 

 

 

Fair enough, however it surely shows a divided population and therefore some sort of compromise is required as the status quo cannot survive forever on such fine margins.

[FWJ]

15 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Because that's how these things work typically. To change the status quo substantially is seen as requiring a larger threshold. 

 

 

Unless it’s Brexit…

[Hagar the Horrible]

Just now, FWJ said:

Unless it’s Brexit…

That's a good point, a massive change that affects all needs to be emphatic by a clear majority, not just first past the post.  Brexit and indeed INDY had half the people pissing off the other half.  Indy and Brexit was the dream of some not all.  

 

If there was another Counter-Brexit vote to join. the EU, how would that turn out, and not based on localised politics (remember nobody in my household voted for the SNP, if you take things to that granularity)  a UK based referendum on joining the EU,  I want it to be close just enough to give the EU a warning shot, I did not expect it to reach the target, and we end up with an outcome if we are honest we really did not want.  Indy will be the same on steroids.

 

For Indy it has to be greater > than 55% for at least 2 years on the polls, just to warrant a referendum.  

[Boris]

14 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

The fact is the numbers are clear and the SNP know that, hence why there was no second referendum, Nicola DID NOT want one, it would have lost and been the end of the SNP and her.  (now she is the architect of the her and the SNP's downfall)

 

44.6%  on the turn out  of a high 84.6% voted yes.   But real number is 37.8% of voters.

 

In essence 62.2% did NOT want INDY,  but remarkably 2,001,926 people who did not want this got off their backsieds ands went to the polls to vote NO.

 

You infer that those that didn't vote would have voted no.  Big leap IMO.  At the end of the day though, if you don't vote you've lost your voice.  Again IMO.

 

14 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

 

There has been two referendums in my lifetime and both failed, but a third will be a success, with Humza in charge?  AYE-RIGHT!

 

So where am I going with this,  the HMP sorry SNP still falsify the actuals by stating it was closer than it was, 44.6% v 55.4%.

 

See above re voting/not voting

 

14 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

 

People just don't want another referendum not for another 20 years, but when there is, and there is a case, a real one not a grievance one, that tactic has become tiresome.  Then to stop it being brought up time and bleeding time again, it needs to be emphatic.  So the next one needs to reach 60% for it to become law,  But if its between 50 and 60% then another should trigger in 20 years automatically, if its less than 50% then it is a wait for 50years minimum, but it must be passed in law that all voters must vote, they do that in Australia.

 

Disagree with the above.  You don't want independence, that's your right.  But just because you don't want it, doesn't mean that others don't too and you are effectively taking away their democratic right to campaign for it.

 

Don't disagree with you regards compulsory voting.

 

14 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

 

The polls haven't moved, that needle has remained the same even though we have had Brexit, Boris, Truss etc.  People are temporary, Indy is like a puppy for Christmas.  It will chew the furniture and pee all over the place, and need walked everyday, even though the SNP will promise they will do it, you will end up doing it yourself while they are on their XBOX.

 

Indy support still remains, deep down but support for the SNP has diminished, hence the drastic fall in membership, and who will put their hard earned cash into a party that spends it on pots and pans, pens and a campervan?  Whatever the outcome of the Murrells criminal case no matter what will be damaging, to the Party.

 

The country needs two things right now, the Green and SNP divorce.  INDY off the table as P1 for at least 20 years, and concentrate of the Economy first, Transport second, Education/Health joint third, the Environment fourth, everything else Fifth, and Indy bellow picking out belly button fluff.

 

If we get stable and have a government focussing on the day job, not their fantasy, then prosperity with healthy outlook will come.

 

Brexit was a material change and as such fell, imo, within the remit to request another referendum.  It wasn't given, despite the mandate of the Scottish Electorate at the subsequent Holyrood GE which returned a pro-indy majority.

 

But, given everything that has happened since, Covid, cost of living, Ukraine, Brexit ramifications unfolding, it is no surprise the electorate want as you call it "the day job" to take primacy.  Don't disagree with that.  Arguably if a pro independence government at Holyrood did do this and it went well it would aid the cause for independence, but they don't seem to have the talent to do so.

 

Much like the SNP, the Tories at Westminster are in a similar place.  Mired by perceived corruption, an inability to tackle the challenges that face the public in their day to day, choosing instead to tilt at ideological windmills that really don't affect that many people.  Grievance politics is the MO of the Tories as much as it is the SNP.  IMO.

[The Mighty Thor]

58 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

People just don't want another referendum not for another 20 years, but when there is, and there is a case, a real one not a grievance one, that tactic has become tiresome.  Then to stop it being brought up time and bleeding time again, it needs to be emphatic.  So the next one needs to reach 60% for it to become law,  But if its between 50 and 60% then another should trigger in 20 years automatically, if its less than 50% then it is a wait for 50years minimum, but it must be passed in law that all voters must vote, they do that in Australia.

Interesting skewed viewpoint there. 

 

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

The polls haven't moved, that needle has remained the same even though we have had Brexit, Boris, Truss etc.  People are temporary, Indy is like a puppy for Christmas.  It will chew the furniture and pee all over the place, and need walked everyday, even though the SNP will promise they will do it, you will end up doing it yourself while they are on their XBOX.

 

Indy support still remains, deep down but support for the SNP has diminished, hence the drastic fall in membership, and who will put their hard earned cash into a party that spends it on pots and pans, pens and a campervan?  Whatever the outcome of the Murrells criminal case no matter what will be damaging, to the Party.

Remarkable word salad of shite anaolgies and absolutely fact free. 

 

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

The country needs two things right now, the Green and SNP divorce.  INDY off the table as P1 for at least 20 years, and concentrate of the Economy first, Transport second, Education/Health joint third, the Environment fourth, everything else Fifth, and Indy bellow picking out belly button fluff.

 

If we get stable and have a government focussing on the day job, not their fantasy, then prosperity with healthy outlook will come.

We've discussed this before, how does the Scottish Government grow the economy without the ability to control the fiscal levers or indeed policy on trade or immigration etc?

 

Scotland (Wales, NI) can only grow when the UK grows and the government that he appears so fond of is making and has made a right royal **** of it over the last 14 years.

 

I'd rather they concentrated on the day job and got the UK economy sorted out instead of pissing about being performative racists 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

The fact is the numbers are clear and the SNP know that, hence why there was no second referendum, Nicola DID NOT want one, it would have lost and been the end of the SNP and her.  (now she is the architect of the her and the SNP's downfall)

 

44.6%  on the turn out  of a high 84.6% voted yes.   But real number is 37.8% of voters.

 

In essence 62.2% did NOT want INDY,  but remarkably 2,001,926 people who did not want this got off their backsieds ands went to the polls to vote NO.

 

There has been two referendums in my lifetime and both failed, but a third will be a success, with Humza in charge?  AYE-RIGHT!

 

So where am I going with this,  the HMP sorry SNP still falsify the actuals by stating it was closer than it was, 44.6% v 55.4%.

 

People just don't want another referendum not for another 20 years, but when there is, and there is a case, a real one not a grievance one, that tactic has become tiresome.  Then to stop it being brought up time and bleeding time again, it needs to be emphatic.  So the next one needs to reach 60% for it to become law,  But if its between 50 and 60% then another should trigger in 20 years automatically, if its less than 50% then it is a wait for 50years minimum, but it must be passed in law that all voters must vote, they do that in Australia.

 

The polls haven't moved, that needle has remained the same even though we have had Brexit, Boris, Truss etc.  People are temporary, Indy is like a puppy for Christmas.  It will chew the furniture and pee all over the place, and need walked everyday, even though the SNP will promise they will do it, you will end up doing it yourself while they are on their XBOX.

 

Indy support still remains, deep down but support for the SNP has diminished, hence the drastic fall in membership, and who will put their hard earned cash into a party that spends it on pots and pans, pens and a campervan?  Whatever the outcome of the Murrells criminal case no matter what will be damaging, to the Party.

 

The country needs two things right now, the Green and SNP divorce.  INDY off the table as P1 for at least 20 years, and concentrate of the Economy first, Transport second, Education/Health joint third, the Environment fourth, everything else Fifth, and Indy bellow picking out belly button fluff.

 

If we get stable and have a government focussing on the day job, not their fantasy, then prosperity with healthy outlook will come.

Pretty much agree with this. Won't happen though, the indy seekers will never accept losing referendum and will always agitate for another chance because they are desperate to ' be free and unoppressed'.

They don't care if it destroys what's left of an already hammered country after years of SNP misrule, they will happily sacrifice the next few generations of Scottish kids because their dream is the only thing that matters.

[BlueRiver]

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

Unless it’s Brexit…

 

I meant referendums ran on the idea of super majorities. Not ran in general. 

[Gizmo]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

 

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, or perhaps on the Labour thread(?), if polls are to be believed you see a reduction in support for the SNP, yet support for independence remains consistent.

 

So whilst an SNP collapse at the Westminster GE will be seen as a decline in support for independence, it may not actually be reflective of the real position.

 

What it does do is show that the "de facto" referendum tactic is cobblers.

It also shows that, contrary to the belief one might develop from reading some of the posts on this thread, Scottish voters can and will treat each election independently. A vote for Labour in the GE does not necessarily equate to a vote for S Labour in a Holyrood election.

[AyrJambo]

52 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Pretty much agree with this. Won't happen though, the indy seekers will never accept losing referendum and will always agitate for another chance because they are desperate to 'live in a normal independent country like most of the world'.

They don't care if it fixes what's left of an already hammered country after centuries of Westminster misrule, they will happily improve the lives of the next few generations of Scottish kids because their dream is the only thing that matters.

 

Fixed that for you

Edited April 24 by AyrJambo

[manaliveits105]

42 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Pretty much agree with this. Won't happen though, the indy seekers will never accept losing referendum and will always agitate for another chance because they are desperate to ' be free and unoppressed'.

They don't care if it destroys what's left of an already hammered country after years of SNP misrule, they will happily sacrifice the next few generations of Scottish kids because their dream is the only thing that matters.

Fair comment 

 

[Boris]

11 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

It also shows that, contrary to the belief one might develop from reading some of the posts on this thread, Scottish voters can and will treat each election independently. A vote for Labour in the GE does not necessarily equate to a vote for S Labour in a Holyrood election.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

The electorate is much more nuanced than given credit for, imo.

[Roxy Hearts]

9 minutes ago, Boris said:

Yes, I'd agree with that.

The electorate is much more nuanced than given credit for, imo.

Execpt on here, where it's more "nuisance!" I 😂 

[AyrJambo]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

 

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, or perhaps on the Labour thread(?), if polls are to be believed you see a reduction in support for the SNP, yet support for independence remains consistent.

 

So whilst an SNP collapse at the Westminster GE will be seen as a decline in support for independence, it may not actually be reflective of the real position.

 

What it does do is show that the "de facto" referendum tactic is cobblers.

 

Not necessarily

If folk think there's an actual reason to vote SNP other than just more of the same pension-padding, gravy-train, career-focused Westminster bums on seats then a de facto referendum could be a viable tactic

[AyrJambo]

Just now, Roxy Hearts said:

Execpt on here, where it's more "nuisance!" I 😂 

 

Can't think who you mean! 😄

[Roxy Hearts]

Just now, AyrJambo said:

 

Can't think who you mean! 😄

🤣