While I agree that there’s an inherent risk in allowing the referendum, this is where (by luck or judgement) the SNP have played their hand well. May is focused on the timing of the referendum, and saying “Not now.” She’s making noises about “after Brexit becomes clear” and there are hints about no referendum until after the next Holyrood elections in 2021. But this is the George Bernard Shaw trap: we’ve accepted there’s going to be a referendum, now we’re just haggling about the timing. Sturgeon will, in the final analysis, absolutely accept a 2022 referendum. Why wouldn’t she?
I was a ‘delayer’, wanting to bide our time. There are many nationalists whi want a referendum as soon as possible. It is thought that Nicola wanted to play the long game, but was persuaded to use the Brexut moment to create this current iuscord, while still hoping for a later referendum.
May has gained nothing from this episode, Nicola has lost nothing. Hand well played.
I am very interested in polls taken over the next few weeks!
I don’t think May has accepted there will be a referendum. She has refused point blank, saying in essence “get a mandate” and not specifying what she’ll accept as one. May is shrewd.
Her problem is that Nicola has a mandate as it was in the SNP manifesto.
Nicola’s problem is that Thresa does not accept that as a mandate.
May’s problem is that if she keeps up her current neo colonial attitide, the Scottish people will see it as a mandate.
Also her bluff could be called by Nicola resigning and calling an election as in NI. Look what happened there.
If Sturgeon resigns, she is out of a job. The date of th Scottish election is set by (a United Kingdom) statute; specifically the Scotland Act 1998 and Ss 4 of the Fixed Term Parliament Act; you need a a 2/3 majoirty for an extraordinary election to be called. If Sturgeon resigns, then 28 days are needed for a new First Minister to be selected; and only if then a new Minister is not selected, does an election become likely.
SNP is a minority party; Sturgeon resigns, the Unionist parties band together to form a coalition in order to keep the SNP out.
Independence supporting parties DO have a majority.
An agreement between the Greens and SNP to vote down any candidate causes an election.
Of course the SNP does not have a majority. The system is designed to stop any party getting a majority. Even if the SNP had eighty per cent of the votes they would still have only a small majority.
I go back to what I said previously in this thread, Sturgeon had absolutely no option but to call for the referendum. Her bluff was called and I really don’t think she has the upper hand here.
The deal on Brexit will not be clarified and signed in time for Indyref2 to occur before 2019.
Even if Scotland were to vote for independence before Brexit, they are out of Europe. They chose at the previous indyref to remain in the UK and so are bound by the decision of the UK Brexit vote.
Given that as a cold hard fact, the only reasonable thing to do (which May understands and which Sturgeon is dodging) is to give the Scottish people full sight of the final signed Brexit deal so that they know whether they are out of Europe alone (and what the possibilities are for re-entry) or out of Europe on the terms of the UK’s deal.
At which point they can give fully informed consideration and choose accordingly.
There is no downside to waiting, Scotland gets a chance to choose when knowing all the facts (something that was perhaps denied the UK as a whole with Brexit)
The only thing in Sturgeons favour is that May’s sensible deferring of the referendum will stoke up resentment in some nationalists but honestly, as someone without a dog in this fight I can’t see how a referendum before Brexit helps anyone other than Ms. Sturgeon.
Have you missed the post about causing a general election to renew the mandate?
How does that change the logic of the timelines?
May will claim that there s no clear mandate for a referendum. Sturgeon resigns, causes a general election and returns with a clear mandate. May’s position now untenable because it is her versus the Scottish electorate.
A baseline for future polls. The latest Yougov poll taken before Nicola shot Theresa’s goose on Monday.
Rather low figures for YES/NO and for desire for a referendum-
YES 43 NO 57, NO CHOICE Excluded.
YES 37 NO 48 OTHERS 16
BUT
Should Theresa May agree to a Second Referendum?
YES 52 NO 48 NO CHOICE Excluded
YES46 NO 42 NO CHOICE 11
Popularity of Independence Parties
Constituency ballot :
SNP 51% (+3)
Conservatives 24% (-1)
Labour 14% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 6% (n/c)
Greens 4% (+1)
UKIP 1% (n/c)
Regional list ballot :
SNP 40% (+1)
Conservatives 25% (+1)
Labour 14% (n/c)
Greens 12% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
UKIP 2% (-2)
RISE 1% (n/c)
So a swing to SNP/Green/RISE of 4% since 2015.
Leader popularity
Positive ratings :
Nicola Sturgeon 53% (+3)
Ruth Davidson 47% (-2)
Theresa May 37% (+2)
Kezia Dugdale 26% (+3)
Jeremy Corbyn 13% (-7)
So, no current majority for Independence in a referendum, but a majority for having one and Independence supporting parties are popular still, in fact more popular tgan at the last Scottish election.
It will be interesting to see how these figures change with the next poll.
That still doesn’t address the logic of the timelines.
May hasn’t said there won’t be another referendum. Scotland leaving the E.U. is clearly a major constitutional change. The only thing to consider is when the fairest time would be to have it which, to my mind at least, would be when Scottish voters have clarity about what they’ll be voting for and that can’t be any point before the Brexit deal is concluded.
If there were to be a general election where the Scottish people elected an independence mandated government on a single issue election it would be politically impossible to not
concede.
Tell me, how long after a second unsuccessful referendum would the demands for a third start? How about a fourth?
Tell me, who is going to pay for a second referendum? If the State pays every time, then there’s no financial downside to continually demanding one.
And what downside should there be for the SNP on losing a referendum? If there’s no downside, then they can keep causing trouble. Should they be proscribed? Exiled? Imprisoned for treason or sedition?
The Scottish government was elected in 2016 on a manifesto which said
“We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”
and therefore have a mandate for that action. If Westminster chooses to act imperially by denying the will of the Scottish people who supported a referendum both by this election and recent polls, then it is being anti-democratic, paternalistic and acting in a way that is going to alienate Scotland further.
The referendum costs less than 0.1% of Scottish Government expenditure.
There is no punishment appropriate for exercising a democratic right.
In a democracy, the downside to losing a vote is that you don’t get to do what you want.
The second referendum is justified by a major material change in Scotland’s circumstances, one that was clearly opposed by the majority of people there. There would not be demands for a third referendum unless there were to be another change of similar magnitude.
Not sure how I can put this any clearer. I’m asking about the timing, not the fact that a referendum will happen.
The timing is everything, when do you think it should happen and why?
An interesting analysis of the laws regarding a future referendum suggesting that it is undecided whether approval of Westminster is necessary.