If The Supreme Court deems Indyref2 legal?

[Rheghead]

Douglas Ross has said he and his party will play no part in Indyref2 which seems like a dog whistle for the wider No-voter public to boycott Indyref2.

Do you think people who want Scotland to remain in the Union will actually boycott Indyref2 if the Supreme Court deems it legal for the Scottish Government to hold a referendum?

And do you think Scotland will have international recognition of its independence if large numbers of unionists boycott a legal referendum?

[The Horseman]

I recently read that there are less people who would vote YES now, than in the the previous attempt!
And another very large sum of money, perhaps wasted.
And the same Leader who threw Wee Eck under the Bus! I guess she tried for Jail but missed….Badly.

Perhaps a ‘clean slate’ would be welcome.

And for the ‘Slate’ writing materials, the best came from the Whalligoe Steps area. Just educating….The Masses!

[Fulmar]

I enjoy reading your riddles Horseman but haven't a clue what you're on about most of the time. You should go head to head with Gollum- you'd win!

[The Horseman]

Thanks. Gollum wasn't all evil!

My thoughts of The Indyref2., was that a New Era should be the beginning of another run at Independence!
Same old/Same old does not seem too popular. There has been ‘a lot of water under the Bridge’ since the last one. Much of it pretty messy!
And…….all involved should be ‘of the same goal’! There cant be this awful ‘competing’ against each other. United we win, divided we fall!

And the writing slates and pencils…….for the un-initiated……..
As I was starting Lybster School these were being phased out, and Paper and pencils were being used.

Now for you Fulmar, a writing slate is the same as a ‘roof slate’, and the pencil is carved like a wooden one, except there is no lead inside, and you write on the The Slate with the shaped piece of rock which is of a softer rock, found in the same place. We used them and they were very efficient. The one draw back is if the slate drops is breaks, so no proof of homework! And The Whalligoe Steps had the best quality.
Twas just a ‘fun comment’!
Or you can ‘Google it’! S

Good luck Corky, but I am sure you will agree that this time ‘all’ should be on the same page!

[Fulmar]

Thank you, I know what a slate is as it happens! I just could not see the relevance of your remark and frankly, I still don't but hey, may be others do.
How can all be on the same page when there is still the same division as before and folk don't have the same goal, quite clearly.

[Corky Smeek]

A few random musings:-

I think we have to be clear on what the Supreme Court has been asked to do. Nicola Sturgeon has asked the SC to rule on whether the Scottish Government currently has the powers to hold IndyRef2 without first obtaining a S.30 agreement from the UK government. She has done this because, as she has stated on numerous occasions, she does not wish to hold a referendum that may be subject to legal challenge. The SC is not being asked to decide whether IndyRef 2 is legal or not. It is merely being asked to clarify where the power to hold one lies (Holyrood or Westminster). If the SC says the SG does not have the power to hold a referendum then a S.30 agreement will be sought from Boris Johnson. If he says "No" (which he probably will) then the next General Election in Scotland will be used as a referendum on the issue.

A couple of other points that I think need stating:-

Douglas Ross has just backed himself into a corner by saying his party will play no part in IndyRef2. I cannot believe that he is intending to sit on the sidelines and let everyone else make the decision. If I was a Unionist I'd be (even more) furious with him.

If the SC says the SG has no powers to hold IndyRef2 on its own accord and, as expected, BJ says "No" to a S.30 agreement then Scotland is effectively being held captive in this Union. Can you imagine the outcry if the EU had said to the UK, "No, you cannot hold a Brexit referendum without our express approval"? Quite frankly, I don't see there being much difference in the situations. BJ cannot go on ignoring Scottish democracy.

NS has made it very clear that she will not hold an illegal referendum. If the SC says the powers do not exist for the SG to hold a referendum and Boris rejects a S.30 agreement then the next GE will effectively be run as a single issue vote in Scotland.

I am not an SNP member but I do think they have been very clever with this strategy. Any continued denial of IndyRef2 will confirm once and for all what Westminster thinks of Scotland and the Scots.

[The Horseman]

Thoughts…Doesn't the Scottish Gov’t have to apply to The UK Gov’t for permission to hold the Vote?
If and when they received a NO, they then have to Appeal that decision.
If and when the Appeal is denied, it can then go to The Supreme Court?…?

[Corky Smeek]

Oh, Horseman, Horseman, Horseman what are we going to do with you? That is what this thread is about - can Scotland hold a legal IndyRef without having to gain permission from the UK Gov't.

You might find this video helpful


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPMpJPKb68

[Corky Smeek]

And this might also help:-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQlFA8FxQXw

[The Horseman]

Oh, Horseman, Horseman, Horseman what are we going to do with you? That is what this thread is about - can Scotland hold a legal IndyRef without having to gain permission from the UK Gov't.

You might find this video helpful


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPMpJPKb68

*******Thank you, but its all presumption and people being ‘sacked’. Great ‘sound bites’……but little substance.
Canadian Law is based closely on The British System, and I can assure you this will not be a Quick process!

Supreme Courts Are That! The Ultimate decision will be made or Not! They may not even hear it. It is their prerogative!

[Corky Smeek]

Horseman, just so you know the video you commented upon was from TLDR News. They claim to be independent, non-partisan and intent upon providing news in a simple and straightforward manner. TLDR stands for "Too long, didn't read".

This will probably be a lengthy process. However, by asking the SC to consider the matter the Lord Advocate, acting on behalf of the SG, has got in there first thus preventing any (ill-intentioned) private groups or individuals from asking a similar question. If another group had been first to ask the SC to consider the matter then they could keep the court tied up in legal red tape for years thus preventing an answer being given and so delay any referendum.

That is why I think the SG is being very clever in its approach. If the SC takes too long; refuses to hear the matter or decides against the SG then the next step will be to seek permission from HMG via a S.30 order. The likelihood is that HMG will be minded to say "no". However, if they do then they will be playing into the SG's hands by denying the democratic wishes of the Scottish electorate. That being the case the next General Election will be used as a referendum on the matter.

What did you think of the "Claim of Right" video and the issues of legality it raises?

[The Horseman]

Horseman, just so you know the video you commented upon was from TLDR News. They claim to be independent, non-partisan and intent upon providing news in a simple and straightforward manner. TLDR stands for "Too long, didn't read".

This will probably be a lengthy process. However, by asking the SC to consider the matter the Lord Advocate, acting on behalf of the SG, has got in there first thus preventing any (ill-intentioned) private groups or individuals from asking a similar question. If another group had been first to ask the SC to consider the matter then they could keep the court tied up in legal red tape for years thus preventing an answer being given and so delay any referendum.

That is why I think the SG is being very clever in its approach. If the SC takes too long; refuses to hear the matter or decides against the SG then the next step will be to seek permission from HMG via a S.30 order. The likelihood is that HMG will be minded to say "no". However, if they do then they will be playing into the SG's hands by denying the democratic wishes of the Scottish electorate. That being the case the next General Election will be used as a referendum on the matter.

What did you think of the "Claim of Right" video and the issues of legality it raises?

*******Why the ALBA sign?…. good but each side have their own interpretation……but I see another One of Boris Boys is in trouble….how long can this last!

[Fulmar]

The latest poll (and it's only a poll) showed that the majority of those asked did not want a second referendum next October and have other priorities right now. Likewise, polls still show a slim majority in favour of remaining with the UK but of course, that could change.

[Corky Smeek]

The latest poll I have seen (Panelbase - as published in the Times) has Yes on 51% and No on 49% when Don't Knows are excluded.

@ Horseman - Alba is the name of a relatively new political party whose aim is to achieve Scottish independence. This video was shot at their party conference.

[The Horseman]

The latest poll I have seen (Panelbase - as published in the Times) has Yes on 51% and No on 49% when Don't Knows are excluded.

@ Horseman - Alba is the name of a relatively new political party whose aim is to achieve Scottish independence. This video was shot at their party conference.

Yes TY. I saw Salmond promoting it.

I think you are going to have a ‘tough time’ getting the required Votes! And was just reading some have thoughts on a 2nd Brexit vote…..
One cannot take those ‘promoters’ at face value. They are going to Fire/Sack everyone. Great for a final phrase and applauding.
You gotta get more people working together……partnerships and promises galore.

People need to know they are getting something out of the Divorce…….and the Pre-Nup…..even that can go bad!

I have been involved in Government meetings where all parties are not on the same page. To force things thru people must agree ‘in principle’ to the thrust towards the Goal. You cannot have the SCOTS in a Turmoil with 1 or 2% points either way….and then as you say the unknown voters.
There has to be CONSENSUS with a sound Majority or you are doomed again.
I am more in favor of Scotland on it’s own now, as I look at the other sma’ Countries and how well they are doing.

Why o’ Why is there such separation within Scotland?

[The Horseman]

Just read….Marie Todd stated ‘It’s time the give the people the Democratic Choice they voted for’!? Meaning Independence!….?

The ‘people’ didn't vote for Independence…did they!

I think Sturgeon and Marie Todd ‘do’ Photo Ops, just to keep themselves ‘relevant’! Same as Willie Mackay.
Send their pics to the newspapers and stay in plain sight.

I am not against any of them……this is the way Politicians do their business.
Out of sight, out of mind! Keep the populace ‘bubbling mad’ but nothing gets done.

It’s all about PHOTO OPS.

Now…….if there was someone who could shake these people up, there could be change! But they are so ‘entrenched’ in their devices that the People have no one to go to. In Government they have their large salaries, with Fat Expense Accounts and can do pretty much anything they want, as you just think back over the last years…Secret Guests for fancy dinners and if they don’t like someone call the Law! etc etc!

There is an adherent unfairness in the World. Elon Musk can call up The Pope and visit at will.
Rich powerful people have the ball and run with it.
I remember reading that in the late 1700’s, early 1800’s, something brought the Caithness people together…..Hundreds walked to Wick and confronted the Council I think, and things changed pretty rapidly!
Its going to take another situation like that to get change.
Why in……………..would they have another Independence vote if the odds were stacked against them! There has to be a Clear Majority of people for Separation or another large money waste!

And Douglas Ross! What is wrong with him…..
You have a continuing mess on your hands Corky……….take the reigns!

[The Horseman]

Well Corky etal.

It seems the Status Quo is continuing for the Scots.
Even with Boris out, likely things won’t change, as far as permission is concerned. And will the Supreme Court make a decision!
They can say either…..
Say, Yeah or Nay…or just not hear it. Anyway it could take much time, even tho’ it is said that this particular Court usually takes approx 12-14 weeks…….For a decision.
Methinks The Populace is just too B…….Y Complacent! You have the best Welfare System in the World. By far!

[Corky Smeek]

SC decision due tomorrow. Any predictions?

[Gronnuck]

Regardless of the UK Supreme Court’s decision, the people of Scotland should not have to seek permission from Westminster to have another independence referendum. Article 1 of both the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
In effect the people of the Scotland have the right to self-determination. In International Law no state or country has any right to tell them otherwise.

[Corky Smeek]

Couldn't agree more.

I just have a horrible feeling the outcome of the SC's deliberations is going to a fudge of some sort. I sincerely it's hope not as this issue is not going to go away.

[mi16]

Good morning all, lovely day innit :) :) :)
Could do with some popcorn

https://i.postimg.cc/3x6CqC4F/1-FEA4063-CAC6-4-B98-A096-21191-EE5832-A.gif

[Corky Smeek]

Well, I asked for clarity and that's what we got. Some initial thoughts.

Scotland is not in a voluntary union.

Scotland is not in a union of equals.

The democratic wishes of the people of Scotland are deemed secondary to those of the union.

Democracy in general is considered secondary to the perpetuation of the union.

Scotland is effectively being held captive.

The outrage this decision will cause will cement the case for Indy.

The issue is not resolved and is not going away any time soon.

[Goodfellers]

Well, I asked for clarity and that's what we got. Some initial thoughts.

Scotland is not in a voluntary union.

Scotland is not in a union of equals.

The democratic wishes of the people of Scotland are deemed secondary to those of the union.

Democracy in general is considered secondary to the perpetuation of the union.

Scotland is effectively being held captive.

The outrage this decision will cause will cement the case for Indy.

The issue is not resolved and is not going away any time soon.

At least 50% of the Scottish population are relieved with this result.

Now is a good opportunity for the SNP to show what they can actually achieve before a referendum is granted. I'm under no illusion that one will be granted at some point. If the SNP can take 60% of the vote in a GE it would be hard to argue against it.

I've heard a rumour that Westminster is planning to look at the law around referendums and is hoping to make it a requirement that a minimum of 60% of voters need to vote for change. I think that's a good idea.

[mi16]

Well, I asked for clarity and that's what we got. Some initial thoughts.

Scotland is not in a voluntary union.

Scotland is not in a union of equals.

The democratic wishes of the people of Scotland are deemed secondary to those of the union.

Democracy in general is considered secondary to the perpetuation of the union.

Scotland is effectively being held captive.

The outrage this decision will cause will cement the case for Indy.

The issue is not resolved and is not going away any time soon.


Well we are in a voluntary union, we were asked the question in 2014 and the majority wished to remain in the Union.
Wasting our valuable time and resources on this carry on a short while later is a nonsense, but you are correct that the Nats wont stop banging on about it any time soon.
Have the SNP actually officially asked the British Government for a referendum on Scottish Independence since 2014?

I actually think this is a result for Wee Jimmy, it gives her more time on the gravy train bleating about Westminster, rather than the career ending indyref2

[mi16]

https://i.postimg.cc/sXxLVQkM/Nicola-Unuion-jack-suit-24149ef5-24c9-4328-b5c6-52525bdd9426.jpg

[Goodfellers]

https://i.postimg.cc/sXxLVQkM/Nicola-Unuion-jack-suit-24149ef5-24c9-4328-b5c6-52525bdd9426.jpg



:lol: I bet that purse is stuffed with Westminster cash!

[Corky Smeek]

I'm not sure why relief would be an emotion. This ruling doesn't actually change anything. It merely confirms the status quo and confirms Scotland's subordinate position in the Union. If I were a unionist I would be very worried by this decision as it will undoubtedly galvanise the Yes movement and amplify the feelings of grievance many of us have.

[mi16]

I'm not sure why relief would be an emotion. This ruling doesn't actually change anything. It merely confirms the status quo and confirms Scotland's subordinate position in the Union. If I were a unionist I would be very worried by this decision as it will undoubtedly galvanise the Yes movement and amplify the feelings of grievance many of us have.

Everyone's a winner then, the union can continue to live in your head rent free and the rest of us can carry on with life in the UK

[Corky Smeek]

Ok, so the dust has begun to settle and it has become clear that the UK is no longer a union of equals, if it ever was.

Scotland has been barred from leaving the Union unless England agrees. England has declared itself the superior power and has subordinated Scotland (and, in reality Wales and N. Ireland too). Many are even arguing that Scotland is being held captive in the Union with England acting as jailer in chief.

Now, I suspect that regardless of which side of the Indy debate you are on you will probably consider yourself a democrat. I also suspect that many on the Unionist side are perfectly happy with the SC ruling and will want to rubbish what I've just written. So, how do Unionists reconcile both viewpoints? It would appear that Scotland is divided roughly 50:50 on the matter of independence. It is equally clear that those of us who support independence are not going away. How can we resolve this impasse (and please don't say "we had a vote in 2014 and you lost", because circumstances have change dramatically since then)?

I would assert that Unionists have to recognise the contradictions in their standpoint. They cannot claim to be democrats and deny access to democracy at the same time. So how do we move forward? A S.30 agreement is not likely any time soon. The Labour Party are just as anti-Indy as the Tories: more so perhaps given that the SNP have supplanted them in Scotland. A change of UK Government will not break the deadlock, particularly if Labour win an overall majority. Perhaps a minority Labour Government might enter a coalition with the SNP in return for a S.30 agreement but recent pronouncements from Sir KS would indicate otherwise.

Surely the best way forward is for the PM to grant a S.30. If Yes loses then then that would be the issue stone dead for the foreseeable future. Everyone on the Unionist side seems very condident that they would win. If that is the case then they should be jumping at the chance to settle the issue. Why aren't they?

[Goodfellers]

Ok, so the dust has begun to settle and it has become clear that the UK is no longer a union of equals, if it ever was.

Scotland has been barred from leaving the Union unless England agrees. England has declared itself the superior power and has subordinated Scotland (and, in reality Wales and N. Ireland too). Many are even arguing that Scotland is being held captive in the Union with England acting as jailer in chief.

Now, I suspect that regardless of which side of the Indy debate you are on you will probably consider yourself a democrat. I also suspect that many on the Unionist side are perfectly happy with the SC ruling and will want to rubbish what I've just written. So, how do Unionists reconcile both viewpoints? It would appear that Scotland is divided roughly 50:50 on the matter of independence. It is equally clear that those of us who support independence are not going away. How can we resolve this impasse (and please don't say "we had a vote in 2014 and you lost", because circumstances have change dramatically since then)?

I would assert that Unionists have to recognise the contradictions in their standpoint. They cannot claim to be democrats and deny access to democracy at the same time. So how do we move forward? A S.30 agreement is not likely any time soon. The Labour Party are just as anti-Indy as the Tories: more so perhaps given that the SNP have supplanted them in Scotland. A change of UK Government will not break the deadlock, particularly if Labour win an overall majority. Perhaps a minority Labour Government might enter a coalition with the SNP in return for a S.30 agreement but recent pronouncements from Sir KS would indicate otherwise.

Surely the best way forward is for the PM to grant a S.30. If Yes loses then then that would be the issue stone dead for the foreseeable future. Everyone on the Unionist side seems very condident that they would win. If that is the case then they should be jumping at the chance to settle the issue. Why aren't they?

circumstances have change dramatically since then ​ That sentence is the problem. There will ALWAYS be a reason to hold (or at least ask) for yet another referendum. If it hadn't been the Brexit 'excuse' then it would have been the cost of living crisis, or even the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fact the UK govt is supporting Ukraine with weapons. ANY excuse will do.

The SNP need to win 60% of the votes at the next election. I believe this was something they themselves said a few years ago. With 60% the UK government would find it hard to refuse. That's the only way you'll get another bite at independence.

As Bill Fernie alluded to on a different thread, a referendum won with 50% plus one never has a good outcome. You need 60% for stability.

[The Horseman]

Aye, Aye! End of!

[Corky Smeek]

@ Goodfellers - Are your serious? I can't tell. Surely you are not denying that the situation is now drastically different. And you say, "There will ALWAYS be a reason to hold (or at least ask) for yet another referendum", whilst completely forgetting (or conveniently ignoring) the ad nauseam repetition of the mantra of all Unionists - "Now is not the time". How many times has that been used to justify a S.30 refusal? New PM in office - Now is not the time. Brexit referendum - Now is not the time. Covid - Now is not the time. Another new PM in office - Now is not the time. CoLC - Now is not the time. War in Ukraine - Now is not the time. Another new PM in Office - Now is not the time. Larry the Downing Street cat has gone missing - Now is not the time. Rinse and repeat.

There will ALWAYS be a reason to not to grant a Section 30 order and none of them have even the least relationship with democracy. I asked how Unionists can reconcile claiming they are democrats with their concerted attempts to deny it in Scotland. Your response is to alter democracy to make sure your side always wins but to dress it up in the guise of "stability".

You are entitled to your view. However, if you are so sure, why are you so scared of giving the people another "bite at independence"? I think we all know the answer to that!

[The Horseman]

Corky….If all the Polls said….’You are not going to get what you want’ at this time, why keep whining about it!
It is all ‘In Vain’. You must realize that!
Why hold any Contest if one is Guaranteed to lose! Can't u see that!

People are trying to heat their homes and trying to stay above Poverty! And you are Crying for another Vote…..that will be the same, likely worse than the last one!

[Goodfellers]

Corky, I expected you to rubbish anything I said, so no suprise in your response, even though my reply was a sensible option for moving forward.

Quick question you say, "If Yes loses then then that would be the issue stone dead for the foreseeable future" Can we have your definition in approximate years, of how long the foreseeable future is, or would it, like now be very flexible depending on what the UK government policy is on each and every item you disagree with? Just trying to work out if 'the foreseeable future' is anything from a few months to at least a year.

Another point to think about. IF the SG did have the power to hold referendums that were legally binding, what would stop them holding one annually until they got the result they wanted? I think business leaders were pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling, at least they can plan longer term with this result.

[Corky Smeek]

@ Goodfellers, if your reply, "was a sensible option for moving forward" then I should hate to read one of your flights of fancy. I had hoped, just for once, you might engage in a serious debate on the issue but sadly, that seems beyond you.

Democracy can be defined as a form of government that is an expression of the will of the people. How can you know what the will of the people is if you do not give them the chance to express their views? People are entitled to change their minds as events unfold. Denying people the right to communicate their opinion is profoundly undemocratic. These are the tactics of a fragile and frightened government and are more at home in a repressive, authoritarian regime than a supposed advance Western democracy. The fact that you support the denial of a S.30 agreement speaks volumes about your attitude to democracy.

Can we have your definition, in approximate years, of how much longer respective UKG's can treat the Scottish electorate as second-class citizens? Just trying to work out if it's years or decades; eternity even.

@ Horseman, you really aren't keeping up to date. The only reason the UK gov't is denying a S.30 is because they know they would lose. If they thought they would win they would allow IndyRef2.

[Goodfellers]

@ Goodfellers, if your reply, "was a sensible option for moving forward" then I should hate to read one of your flights of fancy. I had hoped, just for once, you might engage in a serious debate on the issue but sadly, that seems beyond you.

Democracy can be defined as a form of government that is an expression of the will of the people. How can you know what the will of the people is if you do not give them the chance to express their views? People are entitled to change their minds as events unfold. Denying people the right to communicate their opinion is profoundly undemocratic. These are the tactics of a fragile and frightened government and are more at home in a repressive, authoritarian regime than a supposed advance Western democracy. The fact that you support the denial of a S.30 agreement speaks volumes about your attitude to democracy.

Can we have your definition, in approximate years, of how much longer respective UKG's can treat the Scottish electorate as second-class citizens? Just trying to work out if it's years or decades; eternity even.

@ Horseman, you really aren't keeping up to date. The only reason the UK gov't is denying a S.30 is because they know they would lose. If they thought they would win they would allow IndyRef2.

Standard 'yes' movement response. Refuse to answer a straight question. You are doing the 'No' movement with your deflections a great service. Keep it up.

[Corky Smeek]

Standard 'yes' movement response. Refuse to answer a straight question. You are doing the 'No' movement with your deflections a great service. Keep it up.

Standard "No" movement response. Happy to deny democracy. Vile frankly.

[Goodfellers]

Standard "No" movement response. Happy to deny democracy. Vile frankly.



(---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)

[Corky Smeek]

(---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)

Another standard "No" movement response. No engagement; no answer to anything. Just keep on stonewalling in the hope that all these beastly separatists will go away.

If you are going to take anything from this exchange please let it be that you recognise democracy is a fragile thing. One day you may find, to your horror, that what you have wished for comes back and is used against you.

[Corky Smeek]

And Paul Kavanagh hits the nail squarely on the head:- https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2022/11/28/explaining-the-obvious-to-self-serving-british-nationalists/

[Goodfellers]

And Paul Kavanagh hits the nail squarely on the head:- https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2022/11/28/explaining-the-obvious-to-self-serving-british-nationalists/

What an absolute load of tosh from The National writer. What both he and you fail miserably to grasp is that there is no appetite for a referendum, other than from the minority constantly calling for one. This country isn't awash with cash to keep having referendums. Surely even you can grasp that?

Polls show less than 50% would vote yes, the SNP/greens got less than 50% of the votes at the last elections. I for one, don't want money wasted on this issue until the SNP can show WAY more than 50% support a second referendum.

If you, the rest of the 'yes' movement want an 'advisory' referendum, then get all your supporters to 'chip in' to a GoFund me page, and when you have enough cash, pay for a referendum, just don't use my tax money unless you can demonstrate well over 50% support it.

So you and your article are wrong to assume just because the SNP have the most seats, the population demand a second referendum. We the majority don't.

[Corky Smeek]

And not a shred or a scintilla of evidence provided to back up any of the claims you make. I refer you to your previous derogatory statements on another thread about providing evidence.

I repeat. If you and your fellow naesayers are so damn confident "No" would win put it to the test. You won't because you know that you will lose. You know that folk will see through project fear.

But of course you are a democracy denier. The SNP asked the people of Scotland to give them a majority of seats in Holyrood and in return said they would deliver IndyRef2. So having said to the people that if you vote us in we will spend this money (on IndyRef2) you are now whining about a party that is at least trying to keep a manifesto pledge that the electorate approved. If that's not a threat to democracy then I don't know what is. And, in any case the public money that would be spent would only be on the adminstration of the referendum and not on general campaigning. That would have to be raised by the respective campaign groups. The public expenditure required has already been approved by the voters. I know you don't like that fact but it is inescapeable. In any case it is a microscopic sum when compared to the catalogue of waste, incompetence and corruption that has tanked the UK economy.

As to your comments about how democracy in Scottish elections work I'm afraid it just reveals the extent of your willingness to deceive the public. The party with the largest number of seats forms the government and gets to enact its manifesto. But you also know this. It's an inconvenient truth but one you need to acknowledge. If you are going to attempt to argue otherwise then you are effectively calling into question the legitimacy of virtually every election ever - see WGD's blog.

We the people, who voted the SNP into power at Holyrood on the back of a manifesto promise to hold IndyRef2, demand that democracy be respected. No-one has the right to deny democracy.

The will of the Scottish people will be heard.

[Goodfellers]

And not a shred or a scintilla of evidence provided to back up any of the claims you make. I refer you to your previous derogatory statements on another thread about providing evidence.

I repeat. If you and your fellow naesayers are so damn confident "No" would win put it to the test. You won't because you know that you will lose. You know that folk will see through project fear.

But of course you are a democracy denier. The SNP asked the people of Scotland to give them a majority of seats in Holyrood and in return said they would deliver IndyRef2. So having said to the people that if you vote us in we will spend this money (on IndyRef2) you are now whining about a party that is at least trying to keep a manifesto pledge that the electorate approved. If that's not a threat to democracy then I don't know what is. And, in any case the public money that would be spent would only be on the adminstration of the referendum and not on general campaigning. That would have to be raised by the respective campaign groups. The public expenditure required has already been approved by the voters. I know you don't like that fact but it is inescapeable. In any case it is a microscopic sum when compared to the catalogue of waste, incompetence and corruption that has tanked the UK economy.

As to your comments about how democracy in Scottish elections work I'm afraid it just reveals the extent of your willingness to deceive the public. The party with the largest number of seats forms the government and gets to enact its manifesto. But you also know this. It's an inconvenient truth but one you need to acknowledge. If you are going to attempt to argue otherwise then you are effectively calling into question the legitimacy of virtually every election ever - see WGD's blog.

We the people, who voted the SNP into power at Holyrood on the back of a manifesto promise to hold IndyRef2, demand that democracy be respected. No-one has the right to deny democracy.

The will of the Scottish people will be heard.


Sorry Corky, the highest court in the land begs to differ and as you are one who respects the law of the land you have to accept that fact.

I see you are still banging on about seats. I've explained countless times how irrelevant that is in relation to a referendum, I'm coming to the conclusion that you are incapable of making the distinction between seats won at an election and how that relates to a referendum. I'll reiterate, the majority don't want a referendum so we can't seee the point in having one. When yyour 'side' is the majority rather than the minority, we'll look at it again. Until that happens there's no point in discussing it with you as your only coming over as a sore loser.

[The Horseman]

Corky,
Aye/Aye…Hear/Hear!
Time to get out there, and get enuff to March on Edinburgh!

[Fulmar]

I think that we will just have to wait and see what happens at the next GE really. May be it will be as Corky says and that the Independence vote will be galvanised but maybe not. I think there has been one poll that found that half of those asked would vote SNP on the single issue platform. But there it is again- only 50%.
But all I personally hear from people is worries about 'heating and eating' and cost of living crisis and 'how to get through'. I have not met a single person for whom Indyref 2 is the burning issue of the day.
One thing does puzzle me- why did the Nationalists not make more noise about the Scotland Act at the time it was agreed and became legally binding rather than waiting until now? Perhaps that reveals my ignorance but I have wondered about that

[Corky Smeek]

Goodfellers, it appears it is you who does not understand democracy (or is it that you do not wish to acknowledge the truth). I'll try again for you. Gaining the most seats at an election gives a party the right to form a government. If the party who won the election promises, during the campaign, to hold a referendum then they have the right to do so. The SG are trying to do what the people of Scotland asked them to do. So your assertion that seats won is irrelevant in a referendum is completely wrong. The seats won give the winning party the right to hold a referendum if that's what they promised to do. If the SNP/Greens hadn't won a majority of seats their call for a referendum would have no legitimacy. However, they did win a majority of seats and that gives them the right to enact the policies the electorate voted for. In other words there is a direct relationship between seats won and a (subsequent) referendum. I'm sorry if you cannot see that but it is quite plainly and simply a fact.

You bet I'm a sore loser. I'm on the side that won the election but the side who lost it continue to dictate the agenda. That is not democracy.

I appreciate that you don't want to continue the discussion. Most unionists adopt that stance when the folly of their arguments has been displayed before them.

[Goodfellers]

Goodfellers, it appears it is you who does not understand democracy (or is it that you do not wish to acknowledge the truth). I'll try again for you. Gaining the most seats at an election gives a party the right to form a government. If the party who won the election promises, during the campaign, to hold a referendum then they have the right to do so. The SG are trying to do what the people of Scotland asked them to do. So your assertion that seats won is irrelevant in a referendum is completely wrong. The seats won give the winning party the right to hold a referendum if that's what they promised to do. If the SNP/Greens hadn't won a majority of seats their call for a referendum would have no legitimacy. However, they did win a majority of seats and that gives them the right to enact the policies the electorate voted for. In other words there is a direct relationship between seats won and a (subsequent) referendum. I'm sorry if you cannot see that but it is quite plainly and simply a fact.

You bet I'm a sore loser. I'm on the side that won the election but the side who lost it continue to dictate the agenda. That is not democracy.

I appreciate that you don't want to continue the discussion. Most unionists adopt that stance when the folly of their arguments has been displayed before them.


The SNP could have won every single seat BUT they won it on a promise they couldn't keep as it was outwith their power. Simple really.

[Corky Smeek]

The SNP could have won every single seat BUT they won it on a promise they couldn't keep as it was outwith their power. Simple really.

And there you have it. Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you also for finally agreeing with everything I have been saying. I'm pleased you have seen the light and now realise just how undemocratic it all is.

We may have to name some more streets in your name as a thank you for your efforts on behalf of Scottish independence.

[Goodfellers]

And there you have it. Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you also for finally agreeing with everything I have been saying. I'm pleased you have seen the light and now realise just how undemocratic it all is.

We may have to name some more streets in your name as a thank you for your efforts on behalf of Scottish independence.

Be careful Corky, this comment is bordering on dangerous rhetoric "Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No" ENGLAND has nothing to do with it. Westminster and the law is YOUR problem. A more simple minded 'yes/SNP supporter may be emboldened by your anti-English rant and act on it. Be careful, very careful to distinguish between the English as a wholesale entity and Westminster.

If you post anything that can be perceived as anti-English , I will report it to the police. These are going to be challenging times especially close to election time and it doesn't need you stirring up anti English sentiment.

[Corky Smeek]

Be careful Corky, this comment is bordering on dangerous rhetoric "Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No" ENGLAND has nothing to do with it. Westminster and the law is YOUR problem. A more simple minded 'yes/SNP supporter may be emboldened by your anti-English rant and act on it. Be careful, very careful to distinguish between the English as a wholesale entity and Westminster.

If you post anything that can be perceived as anti-English , I will report it to the police. These are going to be challenging times especially close to election time and it doesn't need you stirring up anti English sentiment.

Wow. So you want to deny freedom of speech as well as democracy.


And, bear in mind that I already have ample evidence, in the form of comments you have already made on this forum, of your treatment of me. That is why I use "Reply with quote" so often just in case I need to have evidence for the police.


I am not anti-English. I have lived and worked in England and loved the experience. I have whole swathes of my family who are English, whom I love dearly. I have nothing but respect for the people and the country. So, if you repeat your libellous accusation about me stirring up anti English sentiment then it will be me taking legal action. It was, however, very kind of you to make the accusation on a public forum for all to see.

[Goodfellers]

Wow. So you want to deny freedom of speech as well as democracy.


And, bear in mind that I already have ample evidence, in the form of comments you have already made on this forum, of your treatment of me. That is why I use "Reply with quote" so often just in case I need to have evidence for the police.


I am not anti-English. I have lived and worked in England and loved the experience. I have whole swathes of my family who are English, whom I love dearly. I have nothing but respect for the people and the country. So, if you repeat your libellous accusation about me stirring up anti English sentiment then it will be me taking legal action. It was, however, very kind of you to make the accusation on a public forum for all to see.

Repeated

Be careful Corky, this comment is bordering on dangerous rhetoric "Even if the SNP won every seat, i.e. overwhelming support from the Scottish electorate they couldn't enact it because England says No" ENGLAND has nothing to do with it. Westminster and the law is YOUR problem. A more simple minded 'yes/SNP supporter may be emboldened by your anti-English rant and act on it. Be careful, very careful to distinguish between the English as a wholesale entity and Westminster.

If you post anything that can be perceived as anti-English , I will report it to the police. These are going to be challenging times especially close to election time and it doesn't need you stirring up anti English sentiment.

I await the police or a letter from your solicitor.

[Corky Smeek]

Goodfellers, you need to know that Scotland's voice will not be silenced no matter the attempts to deny democracy or freedom of speech.

I speculated the other day about where you get you behavioural cues from. I think I know now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D3V0HjytY

[Goodfellers]

No one is trying to silence 'Scotland's voice' When it's in the majority rather than minority, we'll listen.

[Corky Smeek]

No one is trying to silence 'Scotland's voice' When it's in the majority rather than minority, we'll listen.

That has a hollow ring to it much like the "Yes it is" remark of D. Ross in the video above when asked if the Union was voluntary.

It's interesting to note that you only want to hear Scotland's voice when it is in the majority. So minorities need to keep quiet do they? What threats do you have in store for minorities who have the brass neck to want their voice heard?

Have you really thought about what sort of picture you are painting of the country you wish to live in? One where the full rigours of the law are brought down on people to prevent them from having their say. One where democracy is subordinated and 50% of the population are ignored. One where you threaten dissenting voices with the police. One where you can hurl personal insults but shout from the rooftops if someone has the audacity to say something you take offence to, even if that offence is of a purely manufactured variety. All sounds a bit authoritarian to me yet still, I imagine, you consider yourself a democrat.

I understand your conservatism (with a small "c") but you cannot expect the rest of us to sit on the sidelines and have views like yours go unchallenged.

[Fulmar]

I ask this in all humility. What is the answer if 50% are perpetually going to feel that they are wronged- on either side? What if 'yes' support never rises above 50% or even falls below that? Will it be as the FM herself has declared 'if we can't win 50% then we don't deserve to have independence'?

[The Horseman]

What has happened to this Board. Reporting to the Police….HUH!
If people cannot have a Conversation without resorting to this ‘garbage’, they should just go home!

Quote…Be careful…Very Careful!

To substantiate an Allegation, the International ‘norm’ is…….
Reasonable and Probable Grounds. And…….ie
A set of Facts or Circumstances, which would cause a person of ‘Normal Care and Judgement, to have a Strong Belief’!
Has that Threshold been reached? I doubt it.
This is merely ‘banter’….between friends!

[The Horseman]

No one is trying to silence 'Scotland's voice' When it's in the majority rather than minority, we'll listen.

And are you……Goodfellow……the Judge. Seems that way….we will listen!

[Corky Smeek]

I ask this in all humility. What is the answer if 50% are perpetually going to feel that they are wronged- on either side? What if 'yes' support never rises above 50% or even falls below that? Will it be as the FM herself has declared 'if we can't win 50% then we don't deserve to have independence'?


In an attempt to avoid any more vitriol I think, for the time being, it would be wiser if I avoided adding my thoughts .

[Corky Smeek]

Site playing up a bit today?? Or is it my broadband?

I tried to post a response and it disappeared into the ether after about 90 seconds of trying to load. I re-wrote it and posted it only to find the original had appeared?

The second post has been edited into this.

[Corky Smeek]

I ask this in all humility. What is the answer if 50% are perpetually going to feel that they are wronged- on either side? What if 'yes' support never rises above 50% or even falls below that? Will it be as the FM herself has declared 'if we can't win 50% then we don't deserve to have independence'?

This sheds some light on the matter - Prof Alison Young of Cambridge University provides an analysis of the SC decision and provides a view of what it means for the independence movement going forward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9WTRjbn98Y

[The Horseman]

Perhaps u could give us a Synopsis of the 113 pages.
It doesn't change the outcome!

[Corky Smeek]

No one is trying to silence 'Scotland's voice' When it's in the majority rather than minority, we'll listen.

Better start listening then: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/yes-pulls-ahead-and-snp-strengthens-support


Independence - 56% Yes; 44% No.

SNP - Support now at 51%.

[The Horseman]

Corky…..
SNP clearly ahead…..51%…
Ya Gotta Be Kiddin’!

[Corky Smeek]

Horseman, I take it you know the meaning of the word "thrawn".

The Scots Language Centre comments upon the word thus, "To most people, however, thrawn is the ideal word to describe a certain twisted or cross-grained streak in the character of many Scots.".

In other words, if you tell us we cannot have something and can provide no good reason for denying us it other than, "it's ma ba' an' ahm no' letting' ye play", you will see just how thrawn many Scots can be.

Considering what you were saying recently about support for independence, I think 51% support is a pretty good place to be. Certainly, it is a far better place than that currently occupied by any of the unionist parties.

[Fulmar]

I think that is an interesting poll and thank you for posting the link to it.

[Corky Smeek]

You are very welcome.

[The Horseman]

Yup…51% would ‘LIKELY’ Vote for the SNP. Interesting u would miss ‘The Operative Word’…LIKELY.

And where is The Other Fish…Wee Eck and The Alba Party?

[Corky Smeek]

Och Horseman get a grip!

The word "likely" relates to the person's intention to vote not and to the party they intend voting for.

"Among those with a voting intention and very likely to vote, 56% say they would vote Yes in an immediate referendum while 44% say they would vote No.".

[The Horseman]

And where is Mr Salmond…Hiding….
I think u said u didn’t vote for the SNP……..Is it ALBA……..Thats OK…..we won’t tell anyone! Hehe.