To think Scotland should become independent?

[antelopevalley]

As life continues to get worse in the UK, it is time for Scotland to go independent. We need to build a forward-looking country that invests in its future, rather than the backward-looking country the UK has become that prioritises the rich. It is time for Scotland to separate from the UK and become that country.

Well, they did respect the result last time. Scotland didn't become independent.

The question is whether you think sufficient time and/or material change has gone by to warrant holding another one, and as I said going by the democratic marker that really matters the public thinks there is.

There is no reason to allow IndyRef2 in legal or political terms whatsoever. Firstly, international law asserts there is no democratic right to secession. In terms of democracy, its a right only in a colonial context and oppression from the parent state. Scotland does not meet the criteria for either.

Secondly, under international law Scotland and other regions is entitled to devolution only. And that is democracy.

There is no democratic right to secession.

Unionists value stability of the unitary sovereign state amongst other concerns. Given international law, why on earth should they agree to secessionist demands for IndyRef2?!

Attempting to counter that with "No reason to deny them the chance to put this to the test then is there?" is circular reasoning. And that is NOT a reason to grant IndyRef2.

Thirdly, opinion polls is a valid way of gauging support or lack of for secession. They're based on a representative sample of the overall population. It indicates both sluggish growth for secession and opposition against.

Fourthly, the SNP might have more MSPs than the three Unionist parties. But "A vote for the SNP is not a vote for another referendum" uttered by Nicola Sturgeon comes back to haunt her.....and the SNP. As such, its clearly not a total endorsement of the SNP secessionist demand.

More pertinently, the SNP are far away from having as many votes in the Westminster Parliament as the Unionist parties. This matters because it is the Westminster Parliament that CAN legislate to approve IndyRef2 and is, therefore, the Supreme Legislator in the UK.

Holyrood definitely is NOT. See the attached UK Supreme Court ruling once again.....

So, Westminster is the ONLY correct place to campaign for IndyRef2. In which case the SNP need to build a coalition within the Westminster Parliament. And it is democratic for the other Westminster parties to say no and maintain the UK is a unitary sovereign state.

That IS democracy too!

Oh course it matters.

Did all the greens get in only on proportional votes?

Look at the facts and actions not their rhetoric.

low emission zone in Dundee started in May this year apparently but will not be enforced until may 2024.
4x4 pick up trucks from 2016 will be exempt too. What a joke!

concentrate on the powers they have and make what they can, better (basic stoic philosophy and good mental health).

its not hard, better health service, better education, better infrastructure.

Bookmarked this thread for three years hence. 😊

I suggest my fellow-independentisas do likewise.

No, they don't. Other concerns are way, way more important to the electorate in Scotland than IndyRef2!

Polls even indicate a clear divide as to any potential timing of IndyRef2. However, just 79% of those who voted Yes in 2014 would vote Yes again - a clear drop and bigger than the Unionist drop. Essentially, it tells us there is no meaningful change in the electorate's overall attitude. The status quo is still prevailing.

Opinion polls when it comes to how a government legislates are largely irrelevant. You can pick and chose which poll supports your argument - which is exactly what you are doing. There are polls out there showing a majority in favour of independence - which one should we believe?

The greens and SNP are in power with a mandate, if not the legal ability, to hold another independence referendum. This is a fact.

You can argue all you like as to whether that is the true reflection of how people feel, but the fact is the SNP and greens stood on manifesto pledges and, in this case at least, are sticking to those pledges.

How many unionists got in on list seats? Answer: nearly all of them. They all have exactly the same voting power so it doesn't matter how they won it.

Again, besides the point which was merely that the SNP are not the only party in Scotland who are pro-independence.

On the contrary, no political party is obligated to carry out its manifesto at all. The The law lord Lord Diplock explicitly stated that: "Elected representatives must not treat themselves as irrevocably bound to carry out pre-announced policies contained in election manifestos."

So, since there is no legal effect that means there is no obligation on political parties. The attached image explains why this is the case.

Upshot of this is that General Election results do NOT reliably indicate support for secession. Indeed, the sole purpose of a General Election is to send representatives to the democratically elected Westminster Parliament which is the seat of sovereign power.

ah but the greens are in power with the SNP and doing sweet nothing to making scotland a better country; except creating discourse and division.
We are merely treading water with this constantly hanging overhead.

No, they are not obliged to carry it out.

But do explain why the SNP would not in this case or indeed why it is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.

The SNP and Greens do NOT have the legal ability to hold an independence referendum. That YOU claimed they did demonstrates a blatant and wilful desire on your part to ignore the ruling of the UK Supreme Court.

Relevant part from the judgement highlighted in attached image.....

As for your question about which poll should we believe.....this is where a FIVE poll average tracker comes in handy. Yep, you're losing on that point too. Images attached.

I had a good laugh and did a little dance when I heard the news today.

Now can she please focus on the state of the NHS, Schools etc?

She won't of course.

Ah.....Shifting The Goalpost Fallacy!

Frabbits said: "....in the absence of a referendum specifically about this (or any other issue) a party is (usually) obligated to carry out it's manifesto if they are elected to power...."

In response, I was able to show there is NO such claimed obligation on any party to implement any manifesto pledge under any circumstances.

That the SNP demand IndyRef2 simply because its in their manifesto is, quite frankly, irrelevant. They have no legal power and no political mandate to do it - "A vote for the SNP is not a vote for another referendum."

Valid then and now.

It is relevant to show there is zero obligation on the SNP to follow through on its secessionist demands. Indeed, the people do not support it.

Remind me what the 2019 UK General Election was based on?

"Get Brexit Done...." does that ring any bells? or is that "different" ?

I literally already stated that the SNP do not necessarily have the legal ability to hold another referendum. If you could have the basic decency to actually read what is being typed that would be better for all involved, thanks.

I was debating the point of whether they should try to as I would have thought was perfectly clear, along with the other basic point that opinion polls are just that and are not the fundamental driver of policy. This is not hard to understand.

Ahh..... not reading properly again!

The first point was that the SNP received a mandate from the Scottish electorate to attempt to hold another referendum and yes, under normal democratic principles a political party is expected/obligated/whatever to follow their manifesto. Opinion polls, in the end, do not matter once a party has bums on seats in government.

The second point was that there is no reason why the SNP wouldn't follow it given independence is their primary aim in life, so you going on about parties not having to implement their pledges is completely irrelevant for the simple reason that it would make absolutely no sense for the SNP to do that.

But they have no legal route to hold an Indy ref. We knew this before today! There’s no point putting something in your manifesto that you have no right to carry out. It’s just wasting everybody’s time and taxpayers money to keep banging their heads against a brick wall like this..

Well, no, we didn't know before today's ruling, at least categorically.

And once again, it's all very well saying it's a waste of time and money etc but the bare fact is that the SNP keep getting voted in.

And, before the accusations start -> I didn't vote for them but you have to be realistic about what is happening here.

Frabbits said: "The greens and SNP are in power with a mandate, if not the legal ability, to hold another independence referendum. This is a fact."

If you meant they DIDN'T have the legal ability to hold another referendum, then the correct phrase to use was "but not the legal ability". That would then mean you're saying they don't have it. As it stands, in your construction quoted it means "and perhaps even", unfortunately.

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least-at least I mean what I say-that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"
"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"
"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"

And no, the SNP shouldnottry to hold an IndyRef2. Or attempt to turn a General Election into a de facto one....

It does all seem rather one-way, though, as I'm guessing that - were a referendum to be held with the result being a majority voting to leave the UK - nobody would then be going on about ongoing democracy and changing public opinion, especially with old folk dying off whilst differently-minded younger people reach voting age, and thus be demanding a referendum every generation/every 10 years to see if the Scottish population is happy with the status quo or whether a majority wished to rejoin the UK.

Theoretically, if there were 10 referendums where the majority voted to stay in the UK and then an 11th where a (maybe very slim) majority voted indy, could we truly proclaim it as pure democracy to go irreversibly with that one snapshot vote - and decisively never to put it to the vote ever again - whilst discounting the previous 10?

But we did know since international law has been very clear on this for some time. And domestic UK law was carefully written by Labour to make it clear too.

All the Supreme Court did was reaffirm what the legislation actually said. The SNP didn't expect to win for that reason.

The SNP keeps getting voted in since Unionists are split between three parties to Nationalists two.

Nevertheless, "A vote for the SNP is not a vote for another referendum" still applies!

There’s no point putting something in your manifesto that you have no right to carry out. It’s just wasting everybody’s time and taxpayers money to keep banging their heads against a brick wall like this..

Yes, it does rather bring to mind the Monster Raving Looney Party and their commensurate level of consensual 'respect' as serious candidates for government....

Rubbish.

A party cannot enact an IndyRef2 if they don't have the legal powers to do so. Less than half the Scottish electorate vote for the SNP, so they don't have the numbers to win one.

Add that with the status of domestic AND international law.....there is zero reason to hold IndyRef2.

Indeed, the Poll of Polls tracker tells us they don't have the support.

Once again, "A vote for the SNP is not a vote for another independence referendum".

That the SNP would refuse to pursue independence is irrelevant as I said before. They cannot do it for the above reasons.

Nothing you've posted is a meaningful reason to hold IndyRef2.

But I thought you wanted independence? Why would you want to be ruled by unelected Eurocrats? Sadly the EU wouldn’t have you, Scotland wouldn’t meet the economic criteria to join as you’d be a net drain.

Indeed.

Scottish and Irish Nationalists and Republicans all demand multiple referendums in order to keep trying to break up the British State under the guise of Nationalism.

But they flat out deny any future attempts to rejoin the UK. In fact, a united Ireland and independent Scotland will use exactly the same argument I've made - there is no democratic right to secession.

And they'll have no issue with denying a rejoin referendum on a permanent basis which they simultaneously claim is undemocratic for the UK to do.

It's hypocrisy in action, really.

So, the UK Government should follow the lead of the Canadian Government with a Clarity Act. Yes, it would make secession harder for Nationalists and Republicans to achieve. But it is entirely legal AND democratic. After all, territorial integrity takes precedence over any claim of self-determination.

The UK Government should take note of the decline in support for Catalonian secession from their sovereign parent state, Spain, as well.

Constantly giving in to Nationalist demands for a secessionist referendum is NOT the answer.