2nd Indy Referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

No it means that 'Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin' isn't technically correct.

Technically, in the way our democracy works I.e. that not voting is seen as a nul vote it is correct. Whether that is the right way to look at it is a different matter. And I would agree with you that we use these blanket statements too easily. David Cameron was has a habit of 'speaking on behalf of all of the people in country' when saying things I disagreed with.


It's also the same approach which is used in the current totemic use of 'the will of the people' to imply it is a single will in a strange echo of Ein Volk. I wonder if its prevalence is because, at least subconsciously, those using it are aware that it's possible that rarely, if ever, have we had more disparate and atomised views. So we have politicians battling to assert that they have a unanimity, when the truth is all is milling confusion.

To be honest, I am not sure how you get round this. We appear to have banished the word nuance in politics though perhaps as I move into the twilight of breathing, I am caught up in our inbuilt fantasy of previous golden ages.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I guess it does, be sure to remind those that make that argument.

If you are to win the next vote petty point scoring, the vilification of the Tory party and a focus on the process isn't going to work. You need a calm coherent argument with a clear plan for the future.

Mmm surely that's exactly not the lesson of current times?

[Stranger]

So May has rejected Indyref2 on the basis that

"It would be unfair to the people of Scotland that they would be being asked to make a crucial decision without the information they need to make that decision."

I guess it's okay for the UK to make a decision on Brexit without any information whatsoever about a deal (and for it then to be come the Unassailable Will of the British People) but not OK for Scotland to make a choice until it's all settled.

Staggering.

[Nearly Sane]

So May has rejected Indyref2 on the basis that

I guess it's okay for the UK to make a decision on Brexit without any information whatsoever about a deal (and for it then to be come the Unassailable Will of the British People) but not OK for Scotland to make a choice until it's all settled.

Staggering.

As I have noted before we have moved into a post-irony world, it is now coppery or even zincy.

Leaving aside the perceived need to sound strong, this in combination with David Davis performance before committee this week, surely indicates that the two year timetable is at best a notional aim? I don't think there could have been a step by step plan for Brexit prior to the referendum but it's not clear to me of we have moved much beyond Brexit means Brexit. As so often, I watch political leaders, and feel as if rather than leading, they are providing a running commentary on events to their supporters. In the words of Ledru-Rollin 'Je suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive!'.

[Gordon]

Yes I guess it does, be sure to remind those that make that argument.

If you are to win the next vote petty point scoring, the vilification of the Tory party and a focus on the process isn't going to work. You need a calm coherent argument with a clear plan for the future.

I think the vilification of the Tory party is part of a sound strategy here in Scotland: albeit we are pushing at an open door that has been helpfully held open by the Tories themselves.

[jakswan]

I think the vilification of the Tory party is part of a sound strategy here in Scotland: albeit we are pushing at an open door that has been helpfully held open by the Tories themselves.

Yes Tory & Westminster, code-word for English, makes SNP sound less like National Socialists.

In all seriousness I find the vilification of anyone pretty ugly, the SNP it is very good at what it does.

 

[Gordon]

Yes Tory & Westminster, code-word for English, makes SNP sound less like National Socialists.

In all seriousness I find the vilification of anyone pretty ugly, the SNP it is very good at what it does.

 

We have Tories here too you know: I favour the non-nationalisitic vilification of Tories (including our home grown ones) on the basis of their political ethos and their demonstrable incompetence, such in facilitating Brexit for party reasons without planning for the outcome they got.

[Jack Knave]

So May has rejected Indyref2 on the basis that

I guess it's okay for the UK to make a decision on Brexit without any information whatsoever about a deal (and for it then to be come the Unassailable Will of the British People) but not OK for Scotland to make a choice until it's all settled.

Staggering.

But we did have a deal. That pile of crap that Cameron brought back, which just showed how well the EU understood what was going on and so how to adjust to things to form a reasonable compromise to the prevailing situation - or to show what a load of arrogant cunts they are!!!

[Jack Knave]

As I have noted before we have moved into a post-irony world, it is now coppery or even zincy.

Leaving aside the perceived need to sound strong, this in combination with David Davis performance before committee this week, surely indicates that the two year timetable is at best a notional aim? I don't think there could have been a step by step plan for Brexit prior to the referendum but it's not clear to me of we have moved much beyond Brexit means Brexit. As so often, I watch political leaders, and feel as if rather than leading, they are providing a running commentary on events to their supporters. In the words of Ledru-Rollin 'Je suis leur chef, il faut que je les suive!'.

I think you are missing the point. Sturgeon doesn't want a referendum now because she knows she'll lose (and that would be the end of the SNP's run of success) but is using it in a game of bluff as a threat to the Union - a gun against Mays head. However, May is calling her bluff on this and saying Sturgeon has no bullets in it for her. In fact the bullet will actually blow Sturgeons head off and May knows this, as Sturgeon has forced herself into a corner into a referendum she can't win, in the near future, at least.

[Jack Knave]

We have Tories here too you know: I favour the non-nationalisitic vilification of Tories (including our home grown ones) on the basis of their political ethos and their demonstrable incompetence, such in facilitating Brexit for party reasons without planning for the outcome they got.

That is the type of game Sturgeon is playing - how two faced!!!

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are missing the point. Sturgeon doesn't want a referendum now because she knows she'll lose (and that would be the end of the SNP's run of success) but is using it in a game of bluff as a threat to the Union - a gun against Mays head. However, May is calling her bluff on this and saying Sturgeon has no bullets in it for her. In fact the bullet will actually blow Sturgeons head off and May knows this, as Sturgeon has forced herself into a corner into a referendum she can't win, in the near future, at least.

Calling her bluff would be to say have the referendum as soon as possible, and then absolutely I think the No side would win. Refusing for the next six years of so, is the opposite of calling a bluff and plays into the Yes sides narrative.

As my post made clear, I think most politicians here are being driven reactively.

[Stranger]

But we did have a deal. That pile of crap that Cameron brought back...

Yes, that was one of the choices, the other was, well, err..... we'll leave and..... err, we'll have £350 million per week to spend on the NHS....and we'll have a points system for immigration, or not, and.... err... stay in the single market, or not and..... err....hum... err...

[wigginhall]

I don't understand the idea that Sturgeon is bluffing, and May is calling her bluff.   First, that would mean that Sturgeon doesn't want Indyref2 and is pretending - that sounds very unlikely to me.   Second, to call her bluff, May would surely say, OK, let's have one now, when it would probably lose.

I'm sure there is an element of game playing going on, but I also think that Sturgeon is serious about Indyref2.   As to May's position, I don't know, perhaps she wants to string it along, hoping it will fade away, or that Brexit will be very successful, so independence seems less attractive.

[Jack Knave]

Calling her bluff would be to say have the referendum as soon as possible, and then absolutely I think the No side would win. Refusing for the next six years of so, is the opposite of calling a bluff and plays into the Yes sides narrative.

As my post made clear, I think most politicians here are being driven reactively.

Has May said have it after Brexit is finalised? I can't tell were she stands but that is what I think she is saying(?). If so, then I think my analyse works with that in that Sturgeon is more likely to lose on the economic grounds and the long process of being put at the back of the queue to join the EU.

[Jack Knave]

Yes, that was one of the choices, the other was, well, err..... we'll leave and..... err, we'll have £350 million per week to spend on the NHS....and we'll have a points system for immigration, or not, and.... err... stay in the single market, or not and..... err....hum... err...

Those weren't part of a deal they were arguments. Cameron should have got Whitehall to do a plan/assessment for Brexit. It wasn't for the Leave teams to set the agenda/plan/deal on this, as they weren't asked to do this.

[Nearly Sane]

Has May said have it after Brexit is finalised? I can't tell were she stands but that is what I think she is saying(?). If so, then I think my analyse works with that in that Sturgeon is more likely to lose on the economic grounds and the long process of being put at the back of the queue to join the EU.

she's said after it is  implemented and settled down. It still doesn't natter it's not a calling of the bluff. There is no 'queue' to join the EU despitr the Spanish comment . If so then Turkey would have joined some time ago.

[Jack Knave]

I don't understand the idea that Sturgeon is bluffing, and May is calling her bluff.   First, that would mean that Sturgeon doesn't want Indyref2 and is pretending - that sounds very unlikely to me.   Second, to call her bluff, May would surely say, OK, let's have one now, when it would probably lose.

I'm sure there is an element of game playing going on, but I also think that Sturgeon is serious about Indyref2.   As to May's position, I don't know, perhaps she wants to string it along, hoping it will fade away, or that Brexit will be very successful, so independence seems less attractive.

Sturgeon doesn't want it now because she knows that the odds are she would lose, and that would end the debate for a generation or more. But she does want to get concessions on the Brexit deal for Scotland and to look tough and in charge and calling the shots against the Tory government to her Scottish electorate.

A Indyref2 now would mean Sturgeon could paint a bad picture of Brexit - project fear, i.e. sheer conjecture and no facts. I reckon May thinks she can get a favourable deal for the UK which would bode well against the Yes campaign and kill off any project fear etc. that is aimed at the Union Brexit deal. This would give her the attack on the Scottish economy and the laboured process of joining the EU, which would no doubt be a clincher. A Indyref2 just after Brexit would mean May could wax lyrical about the deal and its future positive prospects - i.e. conjecture etc., before it is truly put to the test of time. That's why I thought she was saying to have it just after the Brexit deal.

[Stranger]

Those weren't part of a deal they were arguments. Cameron should have got Whitehall to do a plan/assessment for Brexit. It wasn't for the Leave teams to set the agenda/plan/deal on this, as they weren't asked to do this.

The point is that May is now saying (about Indyref2)

"I think we should be working to get the right deal for Scotland and the UK with our future partnership with the European Union. It would be unfair to the people of Scotland that they would be being asked to make a crucial decision without the information they need to make that decision."

So, the people of Scotland can't have a vote because they don't know the final Brexit deal but the whole Brexit question was settled and (in May's mind, that of the rabid anti-EU press, and what passes as the official opposition) cast in stone as the Unassailable Will of the British People, on far less information about the final details than we have even now.

Can you not spot the tiny, itsy-bitsy bit of inconsistency....?

[Jack Knave]

she's said after it is  implemented and settled down. It still doesn't natter it's not a calling of the bluff. There is no 'queue' to join the EU despitr the Spanish comment . If so then Turkey would have joined some time ago.

Your literal mode is working hard on the queue comment - you know what I mean.

If she is saying have Indyref2 after some time after the deal is signed and has shown its cards then her optimism is running too high.

[Nearly Sane]

But in theory the Brexit deal has to be done by Autumn 2018 to then be approved in the two year period following the triggering of Article 50 expected to be by the end of the month. That ties in with the timetable set out by Nicola to have the referendum late 2018, eatprly 2019. May is saying that it can't happen till after Brexit - note the deal won't be the actual Brexit, and after we have been out for some vague time.

[Nearly Sane]

Your literal mode is working hard on the queue comment - you know what I mean.

If she is saying have Indyref2 after some time after the deal is signed and has shown its cards then her optimism is running too high.

No, queue has no meaning here in any sense.

Just to clarify the 'she' here is May.

[Sriram]

I think it does make sense for Scotland to wait it out and see if Brexit is really all that much of a disaster as people assume it will be.  If Scotland leaves now in a  hurry....and Brexit turns out to be a success and UK does benefit as some people think ...then Scotland might regret their decision.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it does make sense for Scotland to wait it out and see if Brexit is really all that much of a disaster as people assume it will be.  If Scotland leaves now in a  hurry....and Brexit turns out to be a success and UK does benefit as some people think ...then Scotland might regret their decision.

And contrariwise if it is a disaster then they would regret the decision to stay.

[Sriram]

And contrariwise if it is a disaster then they would regret the decision to stay.

That is the time to seek independence, if necessary. Not prematurely.

[Nearly Sane]

That is the time to seek independence, if necessary. Not prematurely.

But then it's too late because you have had the disaster.