Sunday, July 26, 2015

If we put off a second independence referendum until it's risk-free, we'll never do it

Unless there is some kind of split in the SNP hierarchy, it's very hard not to interpret Alex Salmond's comments on the Andrew Marr show this morning as a careful preparing of the ground for a relatively early second independence referendum - not necessarily in the next Holyrood term, but certainly with that possibility left open.  The direction of travel seems to have spooked Andrew Tickell (aka Lallands Peat Worrier), who has written a blogpost begging people to be cautious.  Essentially his argument is that if we rush into a second referendum and lose it, we'll destroy the chances of independence forever. 

I'm not sure that's actually true - it might be a generational setback, but the experience in Quebec has been that the pro-independence movement can survive a second narrow defeat (the issue is still very much alive there, in spite of what some people would have you believe).  However, I would agree that it's important to avoid a second defeat if at all possible.  Where I part company with Andrew is that I don't think we will ever reach the point where a referendum can be held without the risk of defeat.  The idea that opinion polls might show 70% support for Yes in twenty years from now is probably in the realms of fantasy - and even if that did happen, there would still be some risk in taking the plunge.  Big and rapid swings in opinion are scarcely unheard of in referendum campaigns.

If our starting point is that we are aiming for a second referendum at some point, the correct time to do it is not when the risk of defeat has been eliminated (it never will be), but instead when the probability of victory is highest.  Even if that probability is only 30% or 40%, it's still rational to take the risk if you've got reason to believe that the odds will lengthen in future.  So there is in fact a perfectly respectable case to be made for an early referendum - it's hard to believe that the good will towards the SNP is ever going to be stronger than it is now, or that Nicola Sturgeon's personal standing with the public will ever be better.  Furthermore, we have to remember that there needs to be a pro-independence majority at Holyrood for a referendum to even be possible, and we can't rely on that majority being there indefinitely.

I also want to take issue with a couple of points about polling that Andrew made in support of his argument.  He's simply wrong to say that there was only one poll during the campaign that put Yes in the lead.  There were in fact two such polls - the famous one from YouGov on the penultimate weekend, and one from ICM the following Saturday night.  Martin Boon later regretted the methodology used for the ICM poll, but nevertheless it did exist, and it gave Yes a commanding 54% to 46% lead.  There was also a TNS poll which showed a dead heat with Don't Knows excluded, and of course there were sensational telephone polls from ICM and Ipsos-Mori giving the No campaign a statistically insignificant lead of 51% to 49%.  And those were just the public polls - it's an open secret that what really panicked the London establishment was a private poll giving Yes a 53-47 lead. 

I presume what Andrew is getting at is that the YouGov poll gave a false impression that Yes were on the brink of victory, and therefore it's wrong to say, for example, that The Vow could possibly have had a decisive effect.  But in fact the evidence that the Yes vote slipped back in the closing days is pretty extensive and compelling.  The polls were probably slightly inaccurate, but it seems likely that Yes were at the very least on course to poll higher than 45% - before being thwarted by a combination of The Vow and the "shock and awe" culmination of Project Fear.

The second point Andrew makes is that "no poll has shown a sustained or substantial majority for independence" since the referendum.  I'm not sure I understand what that means - how can any individual poll show a "sustained" majority?  Some polls since the referendum have shown a Yes majority, others have shown a No majority, and there has been one dead heat.  All of them have pointed to an incredibly tight race, mostly with a lead for either side that is within the margin of error.  And every single one has agreed that the Yes vote is stronger than it was in September (even though most of them have been weighted by recalled referendum vote).

The existence of Andrew's post is in itself a vivid demonstration of how dramatically the debate has moved on.  In the days after September 18th, he bluntly told people who even raised the topic of a second referendum to "stop it".  It's got to the point where opponents of an early second referendum are having to engage, rather than attempting to shut down the whole discussion.

130 comments:

  1. James, I really respect the work you do on this blog, and your commitment in general to independence. That said, I have read LPW's blog tonight, and I agree with what he has said regarding the second independence referendum being realistically our last chance. I think pushing for another referendum now, or in the next few years, would be an act of real folly on our part. I am much more in agreement with LPW than you on the issue of the timing of a second referendum. There has been no inquest into the reasons why we lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex is doing precisely what he's there for. To keep the subject alive and remind our support that Indyref#2 is obviously going to happen at some point. He also had some excellent stuff on Devo Max not Austerity Max which the westminster bubble media were forced to cover.

      There is simply no way of knowing whether the second Indyref would be the last chance. Clearly we can rule out the views of clueless westmisnter bubble twats who still don't seem to have grasped we just won 56 out of 59 seats. However, just because the scottish public think the next Indyref is inevitable doesn't mean a third one will be.

      What we can say for certain is that the westmisnter establishment parties are not only capable of fucking things up spectacularly for themselves but that everything we have seen so far tells us they will keep doing so and with ever more hilarious results.

      Labour's complete and utter chaos is only the beginning.

      Next year (or a wee bit sooner) the nasty party are going to start tearing themselves to pieces over Europe and they also have an amusingly acrimonious leadership contest to come.

      Like I said all the way through the election campaign for Clegg and his ostrich faction, do not underestimate how they can turn disaster into utter calamity.

      The same applies to the other two westminster bubble parties now just as much as it did to Clegg. (and indeed Clegg's comically out of his depth god bothering Pouter replacement. :-D )

      Then we do indeed have to factor in how favourably Nicola will be viewed and for how long. Right now and for the near future it's not even a question as she is light-years ahead of the westminster bubble twits. Looking at Alex we have many, MANY years yet since when he quit he was still far more popular than the westmisnter bubble twits. We also have an impressive depth to our teams at both westmisnter and Holyrood with several extremely impressive young talents who will be there when needed.

      As to a postmortem for Indyref 1, it started the day after we lost and still continues with masses of data being collected and analysed from all the indyref polling and all the townhall meetings to best inform us on how to proceed for Indyref2. When that campaign starts it will be abundantly clear where we will be concentrating more and how to better use our resources. Keep in mind the SNP has to take charge of it's own strategy and response while the collective of RIC and other pro-yes parties how to do the same for themselves. That's not to say there won't be some public acknowledgements ahead of Indyref2 from everyone about how best to proceed, just to reiterate that it has to be done by all involved and we can't second guess anyone else's response.

      Finally I'd point out that the one thing that matters above all else for the SNP when it comes to the next indyref is the same thing which saw us wipe the floor with the BritNat parties in May and is the same thing which polling indicates we have every chance of doing for Holyrood next May.

      Keeping in touch with the scottish public.

      It means keeping all those party activists interested and enthused while going directly to the scottish public in the streets and on the doorsteps just like we just did for the GE.

      I would suggest that keeping that kind of rolling campaign going all the way through to Holyrood will indeed be achieved since Holyrood is such a natural focus for us, our support and the scottish public. Keeping it going through the more 'lean years' of locals, euro elecs etc. will be harder, but still something we will have to do to keep us ready for Indyref-2.

      Delete
    2. But there is also a danger of SNP and independence 'fatigue' creeping in - particularly if you are constantly in campaign mode. The public are fickle, let's not forget. They like to build people up and then knock them down. It's a great British pastime.

      Then there is the upcoming european referendum - which will supercede Scottish indy as the main focus amongst the public and see - shock horror - Cameron and Salmond on telly, saying much the same stuff (although perhaps not physically appearing together).

      I don't think it will be long until the wheels come off. There are just too many distractions, too many things that can go wrong. The SNP runaway train is fast approaching the buffers.

      Delete
    3. You appear to have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about your delusional and out of touch nasty party views. Not so.

      Let me assure you that I take your out of touch whining and shrieking no more seriously than I would any Pouter or witless tory newspaper.

      Lest you still be in any doubt you can indeed go fuck yourself or just go back to Stormfront Lite PB and spam their threads with your sub-Daily Mail pish.

      I shall leave James regulars to laugh at your hilarious out of touch nonsense as indeed they have been since you 'first' posted. ;-)

      Delete
    4. Mick, your unnecessarily nasty responses betray, in my opinion, your lack of confidence. You were beaten in September '14, you were effectively beaten in the General Election (tory majority locking nationalists out of power) and now you react angrily when I tell you that, in all likelihood, the SNP bubble will burst well before their dream of independence can be achieved.

      As the old saying goes - don't shoot the messenger.

      Delete
    5. "you were efectively beaten in the General Election"

      ROFL

      What an utterly clueless fuckwit you are, even by Pouter 'standards'.

      Delete
    6. May I heatrily suggest that Aldo should remember that those who oppose Independence have to win every one of the votes we have only to win one. You did not win the last Referendum you merely scrapped through. As I said the the fair Niko on Munguin you won the skirmish you did not win the battle, that has yet to be fought.

      Delete
  2. I don't think it will be an issue. I think the SNP will lose its majority at the next Holyrood election. An assortment of Greens and Socialists might bring them to the magic number of MSPs - 65 - required for an overall majority. But there will be questions surrounding legitimacy and the Greens and Socialists may not prove to be the most reliable allies in the world.

    Indyref 2 can safety be ruled out in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really Aldo and on what do you base your ideas on? Given that Labour will have to overcome their problems, nobody really likes the Tories. Presently the Greens have PatricK Harvie and he can and does blot his copy book now and again, I think the SSP may pick up a few seats from Labour. The SNP would have to have a cataclysmic disaster.

      Delete
  3. Glasgow Working ClassJuly 26, 2015 at 10:13 PM

    You lost because the majority voted NO. Nat sis have no respect for democracy but do shout a lot when they win. All your disgusting BNP type flagwaving will get you know where.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Muttley and LPW on this. Sure, we can't put it off forever, but equally it cannot be rushed.
    As for Aldo - don't be stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your argument that it will be hard for the SNP, or Nicola personally, to become more popular in the future leaves out the opposite side of the equation: it's not hard to envisage circumstances which would make Westminster, or other bits of the unionist establishment, even more unpopular than they are at present.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What I took from Andrew's post is that there is a great danger of just acting as if the majority last year were duped or stupid in some way, and if only the question is asked again ASAP they will come to their senses. The public would be entitled to ask why they are being asked to vote again on the same subject, particularly if a fresh prospectus is not being offered. This then runs the risk of Yes obtaining a significantly worse result than last year, which really would kill the issue for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, but that fact of the matter is anyone trying to agitate for a referendum right now (or even more bonkers UDI ASAP) looks as daft and fringe as those trying to claim independence has somehow been put off precisely because the first Indyref was less than a year ago.

      We have plenty of time and we will use it by constantly improving on our campaigning skills (like we did for the GE) while trying to best improve things for the people of Scotland as much as we can to keep winning more and ever more trust.

      If we're being honest it's summer silly season when the public generally takes a break from politics. Labour's complete and utter chaos will cut through that but it does mean that there won't be much else covered particularly by the westminster bubble media.

      On the other hand Mhairi and others are doing a superb job highlighting the nasty party attacks on the disabled and poor.

      Mhairi Hunter ‏@MhairiHunter · 5 hours ago
      Even IDS advisers say no evidence benefit sanctions work. http://gu.com/p/4bvdt/stw



      Showing that you can indeed reach right over the heads of the bubble media and have an extremely effective voice on social media which the Scottish public will listen to in ever larger numbers.

      Which, to be fair, we did just prove by winning 56 out of 59 MPs in the face of overwhelming unionist press and media hysteria trying to smear us, lie about us and stop us.

      We'd best get used to taking the campaign directly to the Scottish public for the foreseeable future. Since, after Labour's calamitous car-crash, we have the inevitable tory split and chaos over the EU referendum to look forward to.

      That the westminster bubble and Labour still don't seem to have realised that glaringly obvious fact as clowns like Kendall make a fool of themselves speaks fucking volumes TBH. So when the media circus moves on to the tories tearing themselves to shreds we will again have to keep working hard to keep our voice heard among scots.

      Not that a searing spotlight on the laughably dire, corrupt and fractious state of the westminster bubble parties does us or independence any harm of course.

      Quite the reverse! :-D

      Delete
  7. In addition to tactical considerations, there's not a little policy work to be done before the next one. We clearly can't go into another referendum proposing a currency union.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is it stupid to suggest the SNP will fall below 65?

    Sure, based on current polling, they'd romp it. But it's in 9 months' time. A lot will happen in that 9 months:

    Appointment of replacement labour leaders north and south of the border - with Jeremy Corbyn possibly proving a game changer if he wins the UK labour leadership (as looks likely).

    A decision on indyref 2 from the SNP. They need to be exact with the electorate about their intentions otherwise they can't claim a mandate. Whichever way they go on that, it seems that some loss of support is inevitable. Unionists wont vote for a referendum. Nationalists might stay away or vote for someone else if the promise of a referendum isn't in there.

    Decisions on tax and spend. The new devolved powers are to be fast tracked. The SNP will need to set out its stall on tax increases / spending cuts. Again, whichever way they go, they are certain to lose some supporters.

    The passage of time dulling recollections of the referendum and the anger associated with the defeat suffered by 'yes'. People move on - and this can only harm the SNP.

    Smaller pro indy parties like Greens and SSP gnawing away at SNP support on the regional votes. Within the time of the SNP 'surge', we have seen support for the SNP on the regional list dip as low as 38% - with large votes recorded for the Greens etc.

    If that happens in May '16, it's bad news for the SNP. They may still have the numbers across multiple parties to force through indyref 2, but they will be in a very precarious and dangerous position - and having to do business with loonies into the bargain. Not good, from an SNP perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If, as the polls are indicating, the SNP pretty much sweep the constituency boards then it will take ridiculous percentages for them to get much change from the regional lists, which are there to balance things up, which works against a party that wins a lot of constituency seats.

      Better to elect Greens and maybe Socialists, for fewer votes instead of unionists, which will happen if the Greens at least do not front up. The Greens are a Yes party, the leadership certainly are. Patrick Harvie is, Maggie Chapman came to a recent Dundee RIC meeting. Dinnae fash yersel on that front. As for the Socialists, well both factions, and the SWP were in RIC. The SWP even behaved impeccably.

      The problem the various non Green parties of the Left have is there are too many of them and now the TUSC has come along to split the vote even further. So with the best will in the world I can't see any Socialists in the next parliament. Unless as has been discussed in RIC meetings they agree to stand together under a unifying umbrella.

      Delete
    2. No, no, no. The regional list is NOT there to "balance things up". It is the more important of the two votes - the overall composition of parliament is intended to reflect how people vote on the regional list vote, not on the constituency vote.

      Delete
  9. I think we should focus on preparing Scotland for the next indyref and independence. We need our own currency that is a definite. I am sure the SNP know why they lost - too risky. So they have to start eliminating risk. I wonder if a referendum on FFA might be the way to go. Because FFA would make independence an easy step

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just as soon as you can figure out a way to make Westminster deliver FFA, go right ahead.

      Delete
    2. Scots don't want their own currency - or the euro. That's why Salmond had to try and sell the electorate the fantasy of a Sterling currency union. It was the least worst option. Trouble is, the no campaign and British government were easily able to rip it apart.

      Delete
    3. You mean they lied and lied and lied about Scotland being unable to use our own Pounds.

      You must try harder quisling.
      A tide of racism, smears and lies plus postal votes and outright fraud "won". They will be unable to repeat that next time as their lies have all been exposed and their tame propagandists at pathetic quay will not be available.

      Delete
    4. The only lies that have been exposed are the SNP ones. I'm still waiting on the NHS being privatised.....

      On the other hand, the economic concerns of the no campaign have been vindicated - troubled oil industry, spiralling deficit etc..

      As regards currency, there is a difference between 'using pounds' and having a currency union - a world of a difference. But a sizeable portion of the Scottish electorate can't understand that because they are, basically, poorly educated.

      Delete
  10. There's a lot of work to be done before the next referendum. We need to understand why people voted No and figure out how we can credibly address their concerns - the majority didn't buy what we were selling them on currency, pensions, oil, etc. The worrying thing is that the higher-ups don't appear to care about this, they seem to think that if they keep banging on about 'the vow' and Smith then people will be suitably outraged into seeing sense and voting Yes in a year or two. A very cynical and patronising strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I see where both of you (and the Wee Ginger Dug who also blogged on this subject this evening) are coming from.

    We can't afford to have another loss. On the other hand we can't afford to let a perfectly good opportunity slip by through over-caution. The Yes vote increased steadily throughout the last campaign (only dipping slightly at the very end) and there's no reason to believe a second campaign would show a steady decline.

    Some people are now saying Yes has to be at a steady, solid 70% before we can go again. I think that's insane. I think there may be 30% of people living in Scotland who would vote No even if Westminster mandated sacrifice of their first-born to the god Moloch. I dread to think how perilous Scotland's situation would have to be for 70% to be saying Yes in the absence of the "go for it" factor of an ongoing campaign. Even 60% is unrealistically high for a starting point.

    On the other hand there has to be at least a good to excellent prospect of a win. We need to see polls regularly over 50% and rising, I think. We also need a new platform. New terms to the debate to replace the tired old memes of 2014.

    We're teetering on the brink. There's a good argument for seizing an early chance that's looking good, if the alternative is to roll back from the brink and have to start pushing that boulder all the way back up from the valley floor. Years of stagnation will see us on the valley floor just as surely as another closely-lost referendum.

    What we really need is a tipping point which catches the imagination of voters. It's hard to engineer that sort of thing especially when you have the BBC in the opposite corner. But I think we'll know it when we see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The BBC are still hurtling headlong into technological irrelevance and are trusted by less than half of all scots. While the public views the trustworthiness of the press with barely disguised contempt. That situation will only grow ever more acute as the years go on.

      You're right though, it will likely be abundantly clear when we are past the point of no return just like it was for Devolution even before the second Devolution referendum campaign.

      We didn't even need the polling to tell us that point had been reached as the scottish public's desire for Devolution and more powers was so obvious that even Blair couldn't go back on Smith's policy and had to carry it through. (even though we know he was opposed to it and only did so to win the Labour leadership in the usual unprincipled Blairite style)

      Delete
    2. Devolution and independence are two very different animals. One brings a safety net, the prospect of rescue and reform. The other doesn't.

      Delete
    3. Is there some part of Piss off Pouter you fail to understand?

      James indulges (to some extent) spamming from out of touch tory twats like yourself.

      I do not.

      You keep coming up with Pouter level pish I'll keep laughing at you and telling you to fuck off.

      MMmmkay? ;-)

      Delete
    4. Tell you what - you're clearly a hamper short of a picnic so I'll be respectful and reasonable, you can rant and rave like a loony and any random dropping in will think "wow - these yessers are bonkers", thus assisting those of my political persuasion. How's that, aspergers boy?

      Delete
    5. Hmmm. On reflection, do you think it might be an idea to apologise for that deeply offensive comment, Aldo? It's not going to help the reputation of unionism.

      Delete
    6. Offensive? Surely just an observation, no?

      Delete
    7. Can you seriously not understand how offensive that comment about Asperger's was? If not, you have a lot of growing up to do.

      Delete
    8. No need James, I knew it would be absurdly easy to flush this dipshit out.

      I'll tell YOU what Jeffrey, if you're going to spam this thread then don't fall back on crap like that when it's so easily remembered. Needless to say none of James regulars would say that and you have indeed confirmed you are the same Pouter dickhead who used the precise same term on 1st July while sockpuppeting and pretending to be (at last count) three different people.

      So we know for a fact that you're the same sad wee BritNat who's been spamming James site for while. Oops! :-D

      So any 'randoms' (LOL) will now know you are a just very low IQ troll who just doesn't have the sense to stop even when he's busy humiliating himself so publicly.

      As I said, go fuck yourself. :-)

      Delete
    9. Shut up, ass burger! :0)

      Delete
    10. James, you seem a bit protective of asperger here, despite his regular potty mouthed insults. And you call the bbc biased?

      Delete
    11. Piss off Jeffrey, there's a good little Pouter troll. :-)

      Delete
    12. Remember to take your pill, ass burger boy rofl!

      Delete
    13. By all means, please carry on, Aldo. I'll be sure to link to this thread the next time anyone claims that Brit Nats have no problem with immature, abusive and offensive internet commenters.

      Delete
    14. Jeffrey doesn't 'do' self-awareness James. If he did it wouldn't have been so easy to prove he's the same sockpuppeting Pouter troll who keeps having hissy fits then has to find another identity lest we laugh at his delusional out of touch shrieking too much.

      I wonder what Jeffrey will call himself next now that we know he's the same brainless Pouter who doesn't know when to stop digging. ;-)

      Delete
  12. How will you know the "yes" lead is genuine? I was digging around in some ancient Scottish polling info last week. A theoretical "yes" to independence recorded some truly staggering leads in 2006. Can't think why that would be - decaying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Continued....

      Decaying Blair premiership, England at Germany '06 and soldiers getting blown up in the Middle East was probably something to do with it. But we voted an overwhelming "no" 8 years later and after electing 2 SNP government's and enduring 4 years of the condem coalition.

      In Quebec, in 1995, the yes campaign had a steady lead of 6 points and lost - albeit by a whisker.

      Current polling in Scotland shows No on 52%, Yes on 48%. But is that genuine? No referendum is currently planned for the near future. In the event that one were called, that in itself could alter the polling.

      The SNP may find, to its horror, that it calls a snap poll on the strength of a small lead only to see that lead disappear the moment minds are actually concentrated on something that is real instead of being hypothetical.

      And none of this - absolutely none of it - deals with the distinct possibility of the UK government deciding to veto a 2nd referendum. What happens then?

      Boring conversations about bread and butter issues I guess - the thing the SNP really dreads...

      Delete
    2. Just go on telling yourself that, sweetie.

      Delete
    3. Nobody voted an overwhelming no. Your own lead quisling stated that anything less then 60% for english rule would only lead to another vote soon after.

      A minority of the electorate could be bothered to get out and vote for english rule. Underwhelming is the word you were after, traitor.

      Delete
    4. LOL!

      2 million votes to 1.6 million is pretty decisive, anon.

      'English rule'? Thank Christ with some of the uber numpties we have up here.

      Ever been to England? Nice place. Pleasant people. Cosmopolitan.

      Delete
    5. "2 million votes to 1.6 million is pretty decisive, anon."

      Really? What would you describe as "narrow", then?

      "Ever been to England? Nice place. Pleasant people. Cosmopolitan."

      You must hate it there.

      Delete
    6. What would I describe as narrow?

      The SNP's chances of gaining independence.

      Was in England a couple of weeks ago. I love it! It's amazing how different the atmosphere is when you strip away 700+ years of victim complex.

      Delete
    7. Hmmm. You don't strike me as being terribly cosmopolitan in outlook. Maybe you stuck to Buckinghamshire or something.

      Delete
    8. Oh, and do feel free to tell us what would have constituted a "narrow" result, now that you've got the Smart Alec reply out of your system.

      Delete
    9. Something much narrower than 55-45. If you can imagine such a result in, say, a US election, it would be considered a landslide. 52-48 or less - there you go. I've given you a figure.

      But let's not forget that a win is a win is a win! If Yes won by a single vote, we'd be on our way to independence on a one way ticket.

      Delete
    10. 52-48 is "much" narrower than 55-45? Dear heavens, this is desperate stuff.

      But thanks for the long-overdue repudiation of Mrs Thatcher's disgraceful support for the 40% rule. You Tories must be deeply ashamed of thwarting the Scottish people's clearly-expressed desire for devolution for twenty long years.

      Delete
    11. I see Simon's back.

      ROFL

      Delete
    12. A two point swing is far easier to achieve than a five point swing. So, yes, I stand by my comment.

      Never said anything about Thatcher or the 40% rule.

      Delete
    13. Yes, you did - you said "a win is a win is a win". That repudiates the 40% rule, which ensured that a win was not a win. Mrs Thatcher supported the 40% rule, and refused to respect the result of the 1979 referendum.

      Delete
    14. Lol - you ARE stretching it! I wasn't alive in 1979. As it happens, I don't approve of the 40% rule. But someone put in the amendment and parliament voted for it. I believe it's called 'rule of law' - you might not agree with it but accept it you must, just as I must accept that I'll get points and a fine if I get caught doing 35 in a 30, at 2 in the morning on a deserted street.

      Delete
    15. "I believe it's called 'rule of law'"

      Well, all sorts of euphemisms are used to describe contempt for democracy. I suppose that one's as good as any.

      "I wasn't alive in 1979"

      Ah, excellent. Plenty of time to grow out of this weird Tory Boy phase you're going through.

      Delete
    16. Having examined the alternatives and studied what socialism does to countries, James, I can honestly say that I will probably be a lifelong supporter of the conservatives. Although I may yet indulge the odd bit of tactical voting here and there, if I think it may be of benefit.

      You can only operate within the system you have. The 40% rule was legitimately passed in parliament - Great Britain's only parliament at that time - and it subsequently became law. People may disagree with it, but the law IS the law.

      By the way, Scotland was apparently so infuriated and angry about this that I never heard anything about it until a few years ago and olds that I know can't even bloody remember it, lol!

      Delete
    17. Dear God, you really do live in a bubble, don't you?

      And you really have got to learn the difference between the law and morality. Dictatorial one-party socialism was the law in Bulgaria, but that didn't make it a great idea. Presumably you think it should have been respected, though?

      Delete
    18. I think the law, in a democratic state, ought to be respected. The potential cost, of not respecting it doesn't bear thinking about.

      Delete
    19. Why the "democratic" condition? I'm specifically talking about the 40% rule - an anti-democratic law. Does your condition apply to that? If so, why? What potential cost can there possibly be to accepting the 40% rule was wrong? That appears to be your idea of "disrespecting the law".

      Delete
    20. I just said I didn't agree with it. But it was a law legitimately passed by a democratically elected parliament. Therefore it must be accepted. There are a few laws I don't agree with. But I must accept them. Obviously the 1979 settlement was superceded by the 1997 one, which did pass and was accepted according to the law. We waited 18 years. What is 18 years as compared to 300 years? 18 years isn't even that much out of a single human lifetime. As you might say, "chill out".

      Delete
    21. If you're prepared to accept anti-democratic laws, I'm struggling to understand why you added the "democratic state" condition to your doctrine. Perhaps because you realised that you had strayed into hypocrisy?

      Delete
  13. Aldo - you are right to make the points you do - but I'm afraid you've not been paying attention. There should be a loose "conditional" Indyref2 clause in the SNP 2016 manifesto. And in the meantime we should concentrate on addressing a) the issues and tactics which the BT alliance (since deceased) used in Indyref1 and b) the tactics and issues which we can anticipate they'll use in #2 - lets get on the front foot here and be ready whenever the call is made.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Geoff, I'm a true blue, died in the wool, tory supporting unionist - sorry to inform you.

    A loose and conditional clause? What might that look like?

    I personally think they have to be absolutely exact about what is going to happen regarding that. The smaller pro indy parties need to be singing from the same hymn sheet as well otherwise it could well be that we see an attempt at indyref 2 slapped down by the British government as illegitimate.

    An example:

    The Green party says it will support a 2nd referendum if and only if Britain votes to leave the EU against the wishes of the majority of people in Scotland.

    The SNP is more vague. It says indyref 2 will be called in response to "material change" or a "substantive change in public opinion".

    The SNP wins 63 seats in 2016 and the Greens, 7 seats. They need to form a coalition to get an indyref 2 passed in the parliament. But the British government looks at the request and says "Sorry guys - we voted to stay in the EU - the Green votes as such carry no weight in this process. Request denied".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aldo - I'd never have guessed you were a unionist - thanks for letting me know.

      Thing is you are really good at requiring exact and specific answers from the pro-indy folks, but are not terribly good - actually incredibly poor, at predicting or defining what will happen if the status quo is maintained.

      Witness what has transpired since GE2015 when dire warnings of the NO camp for post-independence calamity have come to pass under the unionist minority dictatorship we find ourselves in. What is true is that the NO camp did not say these things wouldn't happen following a NO vote - maybe they should have come clean - not much chance of that though

      Delete
    2. Geoff, I assume you mean the tory government.

      Well, it isn't a dictatorship. It was duly elected by a majority of constituencies across the United Kingdom - the United Kingdom we voted to remain a part of just ten months ago.

      Like it or not, they have a mandate here - and I personally am relieved that we have a fiscally prudent government in the UK, finally, after years of hurling money about at undeserving causes. It's a breath of fresh air.

      But if the Scottish government wants to, it will soon have the power to vary taxation, borrowing and welfare entitlements in Scotland. It can offset those tory cuts if it wishes - but it will have to raise tax in Scotland to make up the shortfall. Will it do so? Will it demonstrate its commitment to socialism - or will it bottle it?

      Delete
  15. It's funny, I wrote a 3,000 word response to Peat Worrier's piece, only to find you and Wee Ginger Dug hit on most of the points I was wanting to make, and far more succinctly. Interesting how things turn out, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some amusing stuff from the Rev Stu to bear in mind - as out of touch westminster bubble twats petulantly demand to know why we don't do more to stop their nasty party persecution and attacks on the disabled and poor. All without a shred of irony or the self awareness to realise that they can indeed go fuck themselves.

    "A viable candidate such as Tristram Hunt" LOL. (Adam Boulton in The Times.)

    I mean, how disconnected from reality do you have to be to think TRISTRAM HUNT is a viable Labour leader? Madness. Sheer madness."


    Quality stuff from the bubble to be sure!

    "The UK political commentariat at the moment remind me of prog rockers in 1976.

    Looking around in total bewilderment, not understanding why none of their rules seem to apply any more and everyone's mocking them."


    *chortle*

    As funny and deluded as westminster bubble twats always are though, spare a thought for all those tory, Labour and lib dem 'Lords' tonight.

    They have reportedly been on the phone for hours completely demented demanding their whips find out if they too have been caught 'at it' and growing ever more desperate and panicked.

    I fear that the establishment's 'finest' will soon look back fondly on being involved in 'mere' prostitution and drugs, should several news stories start to break that have threatened to for years. (and in some cases decades)

    ReplyDelete
  17. The mention of a second Referendum should be in the 2016 manifesto if only to remind the liars in Westminster that we will not let them off with not giving us the powers promised.
    It can be a vague commitment to hold a second referendum in the event of a material change.
    We know WM cannot ever be trusted to show good faith and need the threat of the cash cow that is Scotland seceding..
    That said the events unfolding at present re Corbyn and Labour could play out nicely for us in the Independence movement.
    If the "establishment" either abandon the leadership contest as some are already threatening ,or they attempt to gerrymander the franchise in favour of the right wing Blairites the pitch forks could come into play in England.
    I think that the situation in Labour /England is volatile and that our English brothers and sisters are having their "Referendum Moment"
    Throw in the child abuse ,Chilcott and more foreign interventions ,all is about to change.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't believe the SNP will get away with a vague commitment.

    If they absolutely will hold a referendum no matter what or will not hold a referendum under any circumstances then they must tell us.

    If a referendum is to be conditional upon x, y or z then we must know what these things are exactly so that we can make an informed choice. Vagueness, in such important matters, can never be accepted. It gives the UK government the perfect excuse to say "no" - because there is no explicit mandate for the referendum in the situation in which they are attempting to hold one.

    Nothing less than exactness will suffice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you get to make the rules, Aldo. But I do admire your enthusiasm.

      Delete
    2. Nope, the UK Parliament decides the rules.

      Delete
    3. Ah, so you're not a democrat. At least we know now.

      Delete
    4. The UK government was democratically elected. We voted to be a part of the UK. So I fail to see why my position is anti-democratic. Please can you explain?

      Delete
    5. Absolutely. If the Scottish people at any point in the future decide they no longer wish to be part of the UK, you can't turn around and say "that doesn't matter because the UK parliament makes the rules". That isn't democracy, it's a hostage situation.

      Hope that helps.

      Delete
    6. The only way they can do that is through a referendum, which only the UK parliament can legally permit. We just had one and voted to stay within the UK. So any arguments about the UK parliament not having a mandate or not having the right to decide things for Scotland are completely invalidated.

      Delete
    7. "The only way they can do that is through a referendum, which only the UK parliament can legally permit."

      So you're trying to disprove the claim that you're not a democrat by saying that you plan to prevent a democratic vote from taking place? This appears to be the Democratic People's Republic of Korea definition of "democracy".

      Delete
    8. Where did I say I plan to prevent a vote taking place?

      Delete
    9. So you are now saying that Westminster should NOT have a veto on a referendum? Get it sorted, Aldo.

      My advice to you is to chill out. If the Scottish people vote for a second referendum, accept it. If they vote Yes in that referendum, accept that as well. You can't defy the democratic process and then claim to be a democrat. Just ain't going to wash. Sorry.

      Delete
    10. Of course the UK has a veto - we are all a part of the same state. Any seperation of that state - a democratic and liberal state (not some despotism) must be amicable. That means we consult the government and have a proper, legally backed referendum that everyone can respect. But here's the thing - we just had one! A full, free and fair, legal referendum in which we voted no by a clear margin. The Scot Nats can't accept this yet dare to lecture others on democracy and fairness! Jeezo!

      Delete
    11. Er, no, Aldo. The question on the ballot paper was not "Do you agree to relinquish your right to self-determination for the remainder of time?"

      If you can't chill out, the best thing to do would be to embrace your own anti-democratic views, rather than kidding yourself they're something other than what they are. This cognitive dissonance is doing you no good. If you don't think people have the right to decide their own future, you're not a democrat. Full stop.

      Delete
    12. Nope, the question was:

      "Should Scotland be an independent country".

      The answer was "no", loud and clear. I think that ought to be respected for more than five minutes.

      Delete
    13. So do I. I think it should be respected until there is a democratic mandate for a second referendum. You, apparently, think that mandate should not be respected. It's up to you to credibly justify that lack of respect for the democratic process. You have so far failed to do so.

      Delete
    14. Bit much not to expect cognitive dissonance from the same pathetic wee BritNat troll who doesn't know if he's Jefrey, Simon or Aldo from week to week.

      Lest any of James regulars be in any doubt, 'Aldo' is indeed the same out of touch Pouter twat who's been 'bravely' spamming James site for weeks and pretending to be so many different people.

      Delete
    15. Actually, I've barely been on for weeks.

      But I get it - these wee conspiracy type things are a part of your illness. Don't worry, I understand.

      Delete
    16. You said you hadn't been born in 1979. I'm beginning to wonder if you were even born by 1999.

      Delete
    17. The Scottish parliament election could yield a pro independence 'majority' on a minority of the actual vote itself, very easily. These MSPs, as you've admitted yourself, may run on varied, vague and confusing manifestos. That isn't a mandate for anything. It certainly doesn't supercede the no vote that we had last year - I very much doubt the SNP, Greens and Socialist party voters will reach and exceed 2 million!

      The potential for independence will always be there. I very much doubt the SNP will vanish. They could have another crack at the prize in 15 or 20 years, if they get elected again with a majority. Who's to say they wont?

      In the meantime, respect the 'generational' promise made during the referendum. As your own people have said on here, rushing this could be catastrophic.

      Delete
    18. Too late now Jeffey but by all means keep digging.

      Fact is you used the exact same insult (which nobody else would or has used on James site) precisely because you are a nasty party Pouter who keeps getting caught lying and then has to change identity in embarrassment.

      This will be the fourth time we've caught you at it but don't let that stop you from spouting the kind of low IQ drivel and lies that makes the nasty party SO well respected in scotland.

      Delete
    19. Unfortunately I was born well before 1999 James. Sometimes I wish I were a yesser - then I could've been born yesterday.

      Delete
    20. What "generational promise"? Are you talking about Alex Salmond's personal view that a constitutional referendum is a once in a generation thing - a view that he repeatedly made clear was not binding on anyone else? There was no "promise". As you know.

      "These MSPs, as you've admitted yourself, may run on varied, vague and confusing manifestos."

      Interesting use of the word "admitted" there.

      "The Scottish parliament election could yield a pro independence 'majority' on a minority of the actual vote itself, very easily."

      But not on David Cameron's 37% of the vote. Eh, Aldo?

      Delete
    21. Definitely touched a nerve there, lol.

      Goodnight Mick. You will need to pull your socks up though.

      No, not literally - stop touching your socks! :0)))

      Delete
    22. It might have been Jeffrey or Simon that Aldo was talking about though James. He likely has a tough job trying to remember who he's pretending to be from week to week while he spams away cluelessly. :-D

      Delete
    23. "Unfortunately I was born well before 1999 James. Sometimes I wish I were a yesser - then I could've been born yesterday."

      That's almost as good as that Tory MP's "Rs from their elbows" gag. The long winter evenings must fly by at Tory gatherings.

      Delete
  19. For God's sake learn to spell "supersede" if you're going to use the word so often, born-yesterday boy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pleeease!! Stop engaging with these idiots. They're only here to wheedle and taunt, don't make them real by acknowledging them!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not idiots plural. It's one lunatic who's been spamming James site for months under a variety of different monikers as well as anonymously.

      He's a sad wee no life Pouter who seems to get most angry whenever James mocks Stormfront Lite PB. He keeps spamming the site regardless with nothing of substance to say. So telling him to piss off seems fair enough to me.


      Though if you want to know WHY he's doing and who he probably is then look no further than this.

      http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/political-bettings-tory-moderator-makes.html

      Delete
  21. Westminster unionists will play a large part in Scotland regaining its independence. We've seen how they treated the so-called "vow". Their arrognace and ignorance can only help the independence movement in Scotland. I really hope they "refuse" Scotland another referendum - independence assured.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes lost because the general public are stupid, lazy and ignorant. It really isn't any more complicated than that.


    Mandela

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's all about timing. The SNP's best chance will be after 2020 when the Tories win again and it becomes clear that thanks to FPTP a minority of English voters will set the UK-wide agenda for the foreseeable future. The next few GERs reports are going to be horrible for the economic case for Scottish independence, while what has happened to Greece has blown the already poor case for a currency union out of the water. The SNP needs to give itself some thinking time to develop a real world independence prospectus. That will necessitate some open and possibly pretty passionate debates. But if it can do that, a few more years of the Tories in charge will probably seal the deal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. must read--brilliant analysis


    http://peterabell.tumblr.com/post/125163900909/mundell-tells-sturgeon-clarify-snps-position-on

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think the SNP will put in the manifesto that indyref2 will be conditional on the EU referendum, i.e. Scotland being taken out against it's will.

    I can see both points, James and LLPW's. I've posted on here before that what we really need is a proper centre right pro indy party or group. Wealthy Nation tried and failed for whatever reason, probably felt very marginalised in the referendum climate.

    Martin Gilbert and numerous other centre right people would have come out more strongly in favour of independence had their been another well known option, as opposed to the centre left, socialist groups that took up the independence mantle.

    The GER's reports shouldn't be used, they are a joke and don't give the full details of Scotlands true finances, it's waste of time.

    The currency union is a bust and was a source of much confusion for activists, leaving a union and then asking to be in a monetary union....I still can't get my head round it. The German finance minister is now rumoured to be asking for greater political union based on the wide spread belief that the two go hand in hand....

    For all the arguing and I was a good soldier that defended the strategy, the CU was a bit hypocritical and to be honest, if we were in one, I wouldn't put it past Osborne trying to destroy the Scottish economy, courtesy of, well, what he will try to do once income tax is fully devolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was what annoyed me about the currency position. The world was waking up to the dangers of economic union without political union thanks to the Eurozone crisis, yet here we were being asked to go out onto the doorsteps and make the case for doing j exactly the opposite. It was just utter madness.

      Delete
  26. If there was one sentence in LPW's post that nails it for me, it's this one:

    "Nobody has explained to me how the sceptical people of Clackmannanshire and Aberdeenshire and Inverness and Argyll have been won over. "

    It's all very well folk getting carried away with the SNP winning 95% of the Westminster seats (including the votes of a great many No-voters - I know, because I talked to several while campaigning, including the one person in my team who I didn't convert to a Yes before the referendum), but the fact is we were not asking people to vote for independence - we were asking them to vote SNP to get a stronger voice in the UK.

    In my constituency in Aberdeen, our candidate won with 41% of the vote. Include the Green, and it was 43% for pro-indy candidates. 41% of Aberdeen voted for independence last year.

    There has been no great shift.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct and the problem in Aberdeenshire was a tremendous scepticism towards the economic plan, they just didn't believe they would be better off with independence, they worried about their mortgages going up etc etc...It will be the same story in all the well off areas around Scotland, of course there will be a few richer people that voted yes, but it's no coincidence that Dundee and Glasgow voted yes.

      That's why we need a centre right pro indy group to get these people on side and to show them that it is sensible to have powers closer to home and how it can improve the economy.

      If we want to win the next one, it must be a balanced argument with balance across the political spectrum, not just left wing groups.

      Delete
    2. Doug : There hasn't been a great shift since the referendum (although there has undoubtedly been a modest shift to Yes), but to me that misses the point. What there has been is a huge shift to Yes over the last couple of years, and why? Because people were persuaded in the heat of a referendum campaign. I think it's unrealistic to expect a decisive shift to occur in "peace-time", as it were. Even if the polls were to move dramatically, could we trust that? Just about the only valid point Aldo has made on this thread is that opinion polls appeared to show majority support for independence in the latter part of Tony Blair's premiership, but was there any real depth to that support? In my view, if a referendum had been called then, support for Yes would have quickly evaporated.

      In a way it would be nice to think we could just sit around for twenty years, waiting for a "settled will" to appear and make a referendum a formality, but I just don't think independence is going to be won that way.

      Delete
    3. James, unfortunately nobody is asking you to wait 20 years for another independence referendum, but what some are urging is not to go for another one in the next 5 years. I don't want to go into another indy referendum thinking we are going to win just because we increased our support during the first one. The reason we did this is because we got over two years to make the case, and the level of support for indy was so low that it could hardly but not increase. I want far greater assurances we are bound to persuade over 50 per cent to vote Yes, than simply saying we are bound to do it due to the the heat of an independence referendum. That was good enough first time around, but simply will not wash the second time around.

      You and others who advocate one in the next 5 years or so have not described how we are going to convince the people LPW mentioned in his article. What policy are we going to have on currency? How are we going to deal better with the MSM's coverage? Until I hear much more detailed explanations that it will be all right on the night, then there really is no point in going for a second referendum in the next 5 years imo.

      Delete
    4. "I want far greater assurances we are bound to persuade over 50 per cent to vote Yes"

      You're never going to get that assurance. This is the point I was making - you're looking for a risk-free referendum, but you won't get that even if you wait 100 years and leave it to our descendants.

      As for the five year thing, I don't think anyone is really pushing for a referendum in the immediate future. When I talk about an early referendum, I think 3-5 years would be the timescale (unless Britain votes to leave the EU, in which case all bets are off).

      We can have a discussion about currency and pensions if you want, but the obvious answer to your point is that you haven't explained how the passage of a long period of time will in itself make our problems go away. Why does working out a new policy on currency take several years, for example?

      Delete
    5. Nope James, I am not looking for a risk free referendum, but what I am looking for is going for one on much more than a wing and a prayer. LPW was right, some people are determined to have another one before even deciding how we are going to combat some issues better. I also never said a long period of time should pass before holding another one. It is getting like the referendum campaign, where unionists would tell us that we said an independent Scotland would be a land of milk and honey etc, when the Yes campaign never said such a thing. Nobody is saying we should wait a long time.

      Delete
    6. "Nope James, I am not looking for a risk free referendum"

      That of course directly contradicts your earlier statement that you "want far greater assurances we are bound to persuade over 50 per cent to vote Yes". If we are to bound persuade over 50% of people, that's a risk-free referendum.

      I've had this discussion with you several times before, and I have to say you do often come across as wanting to wait for a long period of time just for the sake of waiting for a long period of time. It might help if you specify how long you think working out a credible position on currency (for example) would take, and why you think it would take that long.

      Delete
    7. James, could you stop putting words into my mouth please? Just because I think wanting another indy referendum so soon after the first one is close to batshit crazy does not mean I want to wait 20 years, far from it in fact. For the record I think the time is around 10 years. I think the SNP should wait until 2020/21 before having a fully fledged pledge on a second referendum, on a par with the one for the 2011 election. You might not like this but that is my opinion, and I see that high profile independence supporters, such as Derek Bateman, have said another one so soon is a very bad idea.

      Delete
    8. Doug and Chalks,
      I think the points you are making are very interesting because the issues you raise are in the SNP party political 'heartlands'. It would be very interesting to have a study done on the manner in which the referendum was fought in SNP strongholds, when inevitably led by the more 'conservative' pe existing party political orientated infrastructure, as compared to the more radical adhoc YES grass-roots led referendum type campaigning, found in areas where the SNP lead role may not have been quite as strong (and therefore the 'whitepaper' top down type campaigning emphasis not quite as strong either).

      It seems obvious that we lost because the SNP could not deliver the YES vote in the areas which the party represented party-politically. This is an issue that those yessers now within the SNP, such as yourself, really need to take a good look at when pontificating about what went wrong with the 'YES campaign' and what needs to be done to fix it before the next referendum.

      I am not criticising or blaming the SNP for the loss, as this is all just hindsight after the actual campaigns and actual results of those campaigns. I am saying however, that I have seen precious little discussion on what appears to me (when viewed on any indyref1 map) blindingly obvious. YES was delivered in Laabour heartlands and failed in SNP heartlands. This must be addressed by the SNP.

      Maybe party politics and referendum politics are different beasts for instance? In which case those lessons should somehow be discussed considered and learnt from.

      braco

      Delete
    9. BTW Braco, if you type Braco into the Name/URL and then publish it, you will not be Anonymous at the top of your posts. Hope this helps.

      Delete
    10. tried that Muttley but doesn't seem to work for me ;-(

      braco

      Delete
    11. "James, could you stop putting words into my mouth please?"

      Does that include not quoting your own words back to you?

      Delete
    12. Braco - perhaps it was indeed the fault of those of us in the SNP heartlands failing to deliver a Yes vote locally that we didn't win nationally. Alternatively, perhaps it was the fault of those elsewhere for ignoring the concerns of people in our areas, and allowing their voices and opinions to dominate the campaign nationally?

      Let's face it, the campaign was geared towards delivering a Yes vote in Glasgow, and that wasn't just the official Yes Scotland campaign. For instance, I know of post-referendum internal discussions that went on in the Women For Independence group about how their campaign didn't pay enough attention to the middle class women of Perthshire and Aberdeenshire, but these were dismissed by those who decided they knew better. Lessons being learned there?

      And we certainly had a lot of great activity from WFI and RIC in Aberdeen, as well as the Labour For Indy folk. Pro-indy Labour members were certainly a lot more helpful than those from the Greens - in all my time campaigning last year, I think the only time I came across a Green member was when I chapped one's door. The SNP can hardly be blamed if we were left to do all the heavy lifting because no one else bothered their arse helping.

      Perhaps campaigners in Glasgow should have done a better job of getting their voters out on the day, instead of partying in George Square, like it was a done deal?

      (Or perhaps we should just admit that there were failures across the board, instead of trying to pin the blame on one region or another...?)

      Delete
  27. My response to Andrew Tickell, for whatever it may be worth,

    The efficacy of the gradualist approach is proven. But, while we keep our eye firmly on the ball of independence, we must beware of those who would make off with the pitch of constitutional reform. The time may not yet be ripe for another referendum, but we must constantly affirm our right to have that referendum. Scotland's right of self-determination is under threat. It must be defended.

    I would add a few more cautions to what already risks being a paralysingly comprehensive list.

    Beware of losing momentum. Beware lest the spirit of the Yes campaign wither on the vine for want of the nourishment of small but tangible steps towards the goal.

    Beware those who would have you focus on failings to the extent that acknowledging success becomes awkward. Beware lest sensible caution metamorphose into senseless defeatism.

    Beware those who insist that the heart has no place in politics. Beware those who hold that all progress is achieved through cold calculation.

    Beware those who would have you weigh only evidence and leave off the scales such things as noble aspiration and an outraged sense of justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Peter.

      Delete
    2. Indeed. Nicely put Peter.

      To sum it all up I would merely say those agitating for a referendum ASAP need to calm down just as much as those stupidly trying to claim we have somehow forgotten about Independence.

      We're less than a year from the first Indyref and the establishment parties are going to be up to their ears in chaos and splits for the next couple of years at least.

      So we keep working with the scottish public to help achieve a better Scotland and Independence while the westminster establishment drowns under a tide of their own corruption, splits and out of touch assumptions.

      Delete
    3. Read this when I was just about to type something similar - but you did a better job.

      To take the point to the ridiculous extreme, what constitutional arrangement would cold calculation give you? If you took all the oil and currency and economic arguments and forecasts and plugged them into a computer?

      It would probably tell you the optimum arrangement for Scotland, England is to become part of a monolithic Northwestern European superstate. No thanks.

      Whoever you are, having a say matters. Feeling that your country is *your* country matters. Feelings matter.

      Delete
  28. For those looking for a practical way forward for the existing grass-roots Yes movement to prepare for and participate in the future timing of Indyref2 (whenever that may be), this is a very interesting project. Watch the full film https://youtu.be/w8oYERnk-Vg and if you like the concept read more of the detail in the articles on their website http://nationalyesregistry.scot/. Then please donate. The indiegogo deadline is Saturday and they are only 27% funded!

    braco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually you can watch the whole National YES Registry film on their indiegogo page now :

      https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/national-yes-registry/x/11149416#/story

      and they are now 28% funded :-)

      braco

      Delete
  29. James, Did you or RevStu already highlight the YouGov polling Stormfront Lite PB is leading with just now?

    Maybe I missed it though I'm laughing pretty damn hard at the results right now. It utterly demolishes the tories, Blairites and westminster bubble's favourite out of touch assumptions. (Surprise, surprise ;-) )

    Percentage of voters who think Labour were too left wing - 7% BOTTOM of the list of reasons.

    ROFL

    Not that far above it and the bottom, you guessed it! Labour failed to answer charge of being propped up by the SNP - a mere 22%

    Hmmm... Not REALLY the 'election winning' gamechanger the out of touch twits thought it was. after all. Not even close in fact. How very, VERY shocking!;-)

    A long, LONG way from the blindingly obvious little Ed was a shit leader at number 1 with a truly massive 47%

    Oh and numberr 2 - Labour lost touch with it's working class roots at 28%

    Rreally? You think?? Durrr!

    It's called the WESTMINSTER BUBBLE for a REASON. LOL :-D

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think the SNP have got it about right at the moment - keep the pot boiling but do not commit to a specific date. Reserve the right to put it to the people again and keep the unionists guessing and sweating. I believe it will become painfully clear when the people of Scotland are ready for Indef 2. We are not there yet. The 2015 GE was an important step, but there is other important business to finish before we have another ref. For a start, the min obstacle to independence has to be completely neutrilised. The red tories are down but not out. Holyrood elections in 2016 and council elections in 2017 are vital and should be our main focus for the next two years. We need to consolidate our gains, not over-stretch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Luigi.

      The current policy is indeed perfectly reasonable and robust.

      It was fine for the GE and it'll be fine for Holyrood.

      Nicola has elucidated the policy excellently not just to members but to the media too when when pressed on it.

      So anyone thinking there will be droves of SNP members leaving the party because of that policy and Nicola's stance on Independence and indyref2 are, quite simply, living in a world of make believe with candyfloss clouds and gumdrop trees.

      It's just not going to happen. End of story.

      Delete
  31. There is no such thing as a risk free Referendum when trying to give the boot to the corrupt sleazy child molesting masters in London.

    What happened to all those Naw voters after the Referendum? I conservatively estimate that 500,000 of them just vaporised into thin air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were these new voters postal voters?

      Delete
  32. Please leave.
    We are sick to death of you moaning Scotts.
    Honestly.
    Please fuck off and take your rude butch bitch of a leader with you.
    It can't happen soon enough!
    If you fail again. .... please don't stop trying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you got that off your chest, old chap. Just a pity you chose a three months old post, so probably only about seven people will see what you said.

      Delete