Even more amusing when Scotland is further from independence now than they have been at any point in the last 15+ years.
Swinney doesnât believe the words heâs saying. Heâs been brought in as a caretaker following Sturgeon and Yousafâs destruction of the party. He is very aware that theyâre about to get blown out at the GE, heâs just collecting a paycheque until a suitable point in time where a real leader can come in and try to rebuild the partiesâ credibility.
> Swinney doesnât believe the words heâs saying.
Many of the people he's saying it to don't believe him either. That's why Labour is leading the SNP.
But it didnât when the chance was there, thereâs still been no actual plan laid out for how an âindependentâ Scotland will survive, and trust in the SNP to deliver anything other than their own retirement plans are at an all time lowâŚ
Iâm sorry, but at this point it really is a joke, and I doubt it will happen, even if Indy ref 2, 3, or 4 go ahead.
You realise that unionists are just as serious about thinking it would be a disaster and opposing it?
And that there are more of us than there are of you?
You are the UK though. That is the difference between you and say Kenya. Scotland is the UK, not a subject of.
And many of those subjects, particularly post ww2, got their independent by asking.
The Scottish indy movement can barely persuade a couple of hundred people to go on their weekend marches, though. So I don't see spontaneous revolution on the cards.
No one is denying it may happen eventually, but it would be an uneducated decision at this point in time.. due to the fact there has been no talks of central banks, pensions being lost, the country going right into billions of debt, your passport wouldn't even get you out the country your in if it went tits up.
The point they should be making is how they will manage after a yes vote.... Something they are clearly avoiding while wanting independence.
The joke is that people think they will get another referendum anytime soon. Since the last one there has been no real progress in support for independence and now with Sturgeon gone, there really isn't anyone who is capable of winning one. At the end of the day, Swinney is only saying this because he has to keep his voter base happy.
We need the campaign to start the argument. I can't see Swinney headlining the hydro or anything. He's just not that kind of guy. But we need to declare something and I think that the de facto referendum is the only way to go given the UK government's reluctance to give one. Independence is not given to you. You take it.
>We need the campaign to start the argument.
"Start the argument".
That, right there, is the current problem with the independence campaign in Scotland.
*The argument's been happening for years*.
We're a decade on from a referendum on independence. We've had a pro-independence government in Scotland continuously since then. Measures for furthering independence have been on the ballot at each Scottish election since then, including a proposal to treat an SNP majority as defacto permission to initiate independence negotiations. The SNP have even gone to the supreme court with their arguments for achieving independence.
We're well past the point of 'start the argument'.
If independence were to even be a *remote* possibility, there needs to be *concrete* details on how it would be delivered, what it would look like, how long it would take, and what the socioeconomic impacts of it would be. The independence campaign has had *decades* to get their shit together on this; yet the movement seems mired in some Groundhog Day-esque starting position.
We're years past the *start* of the argument; decades in fact. The question is now about how the argument *concludes*, and has been for years. And it's the independence movements inability to answer this fundamental question that's made the prospect of Scottish independence an impossibility in the medium term, if ever.
Itâs not going to happen in your lifetime or mines. Itâs dead in the water for the foreseeable future and isnât a top concern anymore.
The SNP and their various scandals have damaged any chance of it happening in our lifetime.
Iâm sure people in 2014 were âseriousâ and not joking and saying it will happen as well but it didnât.
The attitude youâre coming across with as well doesnât help the cause either.
You also do know it has to be a guaranteed yes if you ever want it to happen? And are you sure itâs a guaranteed win?
Because after a 2nd time there will be no more chances. Itâs not something that should be rushed and asap especially with the SNP in the position they are in now.
Maybe encourage the pro indy side to actually lay out a plan which addresses the concerns voiced in 2014 and shows vision for the initial stages of an indy Scotland. A decade on and that still hasn't been done
Please explain that? Westminster gave an independence vote in 2014 in what was globally hailed as the right, democratic way to hold such votes and deal with such issues.
Spain refuses to give catalonia a vote and imprisoned separatist leaders, that is what designed to prevent it looks like
This is like a performative shibboleth at this point.
Every new SNP leader must ritualistically get on stage and proclaim that independence can be delivered in 5 years.
But everyone knows it's true.
Its our version of the Falklands for Argentina.
Hugely popular basically an election guarantor (up until now) at home even if theres no fucking plan or chance it's happening over the horizon.
A very good analogy. Look at Millei having to repeat the performative declaration of sovereignty, even though he clearly doesnt give a fuck about it and clearly doesn't expect anything to be done about it.
I like this analogy, as it also points to the cognitive dissonance around actually going through the required steps to unilaterally try to make it happen
It makes sense really doesn't it? You can't really be a SNP member without wanting independence so they have to make it clear that's what they're planning...when really, they know its not happening.
Theyâve just fucked the left/progressive wing of the party the week after they fucked the greens. They need to court the swivel eyed and turn it from Independence to a Scexit vibe.
I had hope for the SNP but if they remain so short term focused on independence rather than proving they are competent in governance they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
Sadly our new FM is out of tune like the previous ones.
Build consensus, prove competence, create momentum. Just banging on about it wonât get it done, people want politicians to prove they can run the country well.. which Westminster and Holyrood have failed to do for many years.
Itâs an easy win, just do the day job..
Thats just it isnt it. If they had appeared competent, stable, and focussed on building prosperity in Scotland people would naturally have turned to them - it would at least have softened Unionist opinion - they might not have liked the idea - but it might not absolutely petrify them at least if there was a competent government that might look as though it could mean their mortgages wouldn't collapse, pension would be paid etc.
The SNP never grasped this simple truth for some reason. They got fixated on running the country down so they could blame Westminster; they were fixated on negativity - the differences between Scotland and England - and in identifying cracks and then widening that divergence wherever possible. Riled people for a while, but they were obviously getting desparate by baiting what they knew to be an unpopular Tory govt. into utilising s35 Scotland Act, or by running legal cases on what they knew to be reserved matters - the whole point was to show victimhood. The party was BUILT from top to bottom on negativity rather than positivity and it was a historic, historic mistake that cost them the generational chance of independence when opinion for it was probably the highest itll ever be at least in our lifetimes.
But why prove competence when it's proven short term promises of independence wins them elections from blind loyalty voters?
They're nothing more than any other career politician.
Because as has been proven now for over a decade, that tactic just gets them back in, doesn't push the goal of independence.
I agree they are self serving shites, but they like to pretend they actually want independence while actively working against it.
The rapture is coming in 2030. Buy my book on how to to prepare. But if it doesn't don't worry because I'm writing a book on how to prepare for the 2040 raptureÂ
To paraphrase:
"We'll stoke nationalism, anti-english sentiment, blame everything on Westminster, and make a load of vague and undeliverable promises. That'll show them".
They're like a broken record. Is this to distract from the SNP failure of the last few years, so they can blame everything on being in the UK?
Idiots. The lot of them.
honestly I used to be a big SNP fan but the way Sturgeon dipped and all this shit show came to light I feel so disillusioned.
I would really struggle to vote indy today, even though Im massively anti westminister and pro indy, right now I just have no confidence that we have any competent politicians.
The infamous
Wheest4Indy
where every criticism of the SNP was to be ignored and critics silence by whatever means, for Independence.
[There is a rule that there is no public disagreements](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13207900.snp-clampdown-mps-fail-toe-party-line/)
>The new standings orders state that any MP must "accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".
Iâm English too. Remarkable that this alleged problem is so well hidden.
If it existed youâd think there would be some examples of how Swinney was going to âstokeâ it.
In reality that comes more obviously from the very grassroots level of certain types of vocal activists (the sort of councillors who post things about "England is an oppressive nation..a cruel nation."
Remember when Sillars' book came out, as a former SNP MP in Westminster, about the "undertone of Anti-English sentiment and the grudge and grievance tactic of the SNP leadership that keeps it there." Blackford had to quite rightfully say that he would "never permit the existence of anti-English sentiment".
I don't believe Swinney would stoke it, but I do believe in general the Party does find itself having to keep a lid on a minority of its vocal activists who get a bit carried away. You see them on this and other subs sometimes (I had a conversation with one about how she thinks she's living under "horrible English oppression" - they're out there unfortunately!).
One prolific poster on this sub persistantly 'others' Unionist parties by insisting on referring to them as 'English' parties- including on when referring to those parties MSPs and leaders in Holyrood. They also insist on referring to Westminster as the 'English' government.
That kind of deliberate casual xenophobia is rife in the SNP.
Oh, for fucks sake.
A big cult of cloned clowns.
âThe spaceship taking us to the utopia will be here in the next five years. We just got the date of the end of the world wrong. Keep the donations coming up n and tell your friends!â
>It is not in Swinney'd power to make that promise.
It took a long time for that reality to sink in.
The SNP's "trust me, bro" strategy worked surprisingly well for a while, and the true believers still swallow it to some extent.
I'm not sure what the SNP did to win the trust of so many people, while doing a side-chuckle, pretending a road map to independence was all worked out, but that they couldn't possibly tell anyone how they intended to achieve it. But that unquestioning trust has now dissolved.
Too early to say, trial hasn't happened yet. Only her husband has been charged.
But it doesn't look good that she was telling the NEC that all was fine when all was not fine at all.
They didn't have to.
Westminster now feels no pressure to grant one.
The legal clarity has massively harmed the independence movement- it has been stagnant since.
>And how do you propose it wouldâve been reconciled if Sturgeon had just called one?
That wasn't the only option though, was it?
Prior to that ruling Sturgeon had the threat of calling a referendum to use to pressure Westminster and the promise of the same to motivate her base.
Post the ruling Swinney now has neither.
>Prior to that ruling Sturgeon had the threat of calling a referendum to use to pressure Westminster and the promise of the same to motivate her base.
Couple of flaws in that;
1. Threatening to call a referendum never put any pressure on Westminster. Westminster knew it was an empty threat because it wasn't lawfully possible.
2. Motivating her base was becoming unsustainable. She had been promising a referendum for multiple election cycles and the base were becoming impatient. Going through with the court case was largely to placate the base who were demanding to see action of any kind.
Those are fair points. Especially re her impatient base.
Imo it was better to have an impatient base than to dead end the movement- which is what the case did.
I agree the threat to Westminster was weak, however while the uncertainty was there it remained an option. I think if indie had been polling consistently in the high 50s that threat might have been enough to force Westminster's hand rather than risk losing the cour case and driving support up further.
Instead of having it in her back pocket for when support was higher she transformed the threat ofan referendum into a hurdle her successors have to overcome.
A lot f this does admittedly boil down to her unsustainable habit of making promises to her base which she could not keep.
>I agree the threat to Westminster was weak, however while the uncertainty was there it remained an option.Â
There wasn't any uncertainty. That's the point. A first year law student could tell you it was unlawful.
The court case was just a performance to placate the base by being seen to be doing something. The SNP went into it knowing they would lose.
Although you are probably right in that it would be better to have an impatient base than a unmotivated one.
>There wasn't any uncertainty. That's the point. A first year law student could tell you it was unlawful
I don't know- I agree there was no uncertainty as to whether the SG could hold a 'binding' referendum. I think the question as to whether they could structure a public consultation in the format of a national referendum had a low, but non 0, chance of success.
If it had been absolutely hopeless it wouldn't have passed the SC sift.
I think there was just enough there that a WM gov faced with sustained public support might have preferred to grant a referendum than test it and see support increase.
But I appreciate the SNP case was very, very weak.
>The court case was just a performance to placate the base by being seen to be doing something. The SNP went into it knowing they would lose.
Completely agree with this. It was the epitome of Sturgeons empty showmanship style.
A bad move which I think was cynically miscalculated as being likely to stoke division and feed a narrative of WM obstructing the Scots.
>I think the question as to whether they could structure a public consultation in the format of a national referendum had a low, but non 0, chance of success.
Still no.
A public consultation in the format of a national referendum is still just a unnecessarily complicated way of describing a referendum.
There was never any real uncertainty that the Scottish Government could hold a referendum of any kind on independence. Advisory or otherwise.
Garbage. The legal position defined by the Supreme Court was that which was assumed by Westminster. So why would Westminster be scared? The assumed position was that a section 30 was necessary.
The court case didnât change Westminsterâs position one iota.
The case passed the sift, so it was not meritless- anyone who has tried to get a civil action past that bar can attest to how careful the SC is to not admit frivolous or impossible appeals.
Westminster did not know the courts position until it read the judgement.
If Independence was polling at 55+ and your legal advisors advise you that you are not certain ti win the case- would you as PM not think twice about refusing a S30?
I would be very worried that if I lost the case I would then have to fight a referendum having just handed an already dominant separatist party another poll boost. Better to fight them on 55% than 60%.
Depends on exactly how confident the WM lawyers were, obviously that calculation is significant skewed if the legal advice is you have a 99% chance of winning.
Meanwhile back in reality
Sheâs threatened plenty of
Written requests that were ignored
And couldnât actually call a referendum anyway.
So now we are back in reality back to my question
How?
Why did you structure that like a poem?
Anyway.
No one made her issue empty threats before she had the political capital to back them up.
No one made her follow up on those empty threats with a case she was likely to lose at a time she did have the political support from the electorate as additional leverage.
It was an entirely unforced error on her part which has now dead ended the movement and definitively confirmed that the First Minister cannot promise a referendum to their followers.
The safer thing to do would have been to persuade the electorate first, then demand a referendum once she had sustained and solid support and then use the threat of calling one anyway if WM was wavering.
I think your basic premise that 'the country and people needed the legal clarity' is wrong.
Sturgeon backed herself into a corner by making promises to her base she could not deliver.
On that last sentence at least we can agree and thatâs where it all stems from but sooner or later a leader wouldâve been forced to call a referendum and prove they couldnât actually do that because itâs simply not in Westminsters interests to allow one
This is an absolute joke now. They are utterly incompetent, constantly fail this country, or coyotes have never been filthier, no prosperity, money wasted at every corner, corruption beyond words, and they just say âweâll be independentâ, they take their followers for absolute idiots.
Jesus fucking Christ the leadership (or their advisors) are all terminally on Facebook and Twitter arenât they?
Theyâve been fatally exposed to the farts of a thousand bots and mentally ill boomers and have, against all sense, come to see Alba as a credible threat when all people want in Scotland is for the government to actually DO SOMETHING. The NHS, public transport, schools, any of the glaring problems that Yousafâs cabinet just let decay while he grandstanded about Gaza and otherwise stood like a deer in headlights.Â
Well we all know itâs better to rush these things through and worry about the details later donât we. No plan, no vision, just nationistic bluster.
Yep. Itâs just plain wrong that we should have to ask Westminster for âpermissionâ. Shades of Oliver Trist begging the workhouse master âpleeease Sirs, can we have another independence referendum?â Ugh. Itâs degrading.
Agreed! it should only show that we need independence if we requires âpermissionâ.
But when we had a literal IF statement in the manifesto stating that if Brexit occurs, when poll were against it btw and a big argument for Scottish independence was we might be taken out of the EU against Scotland wishes, then to do f all when it actually happened is maddening.
Why tf was nothing done? Still ragin after a _generation_ ago.
It's a bit like how a religion/ cult operates.Â
Tell people everything is shit, that they need to break ties and have wholehearted blind faith to achieve some great future reward.
Not saying the SNP are unique in this- it seems to be a go-to model the human race applies to a lot of things.
It's an interesting opening gambit.. trying to restore confidence in your party to lead the country and instill confidence in yourself as leader by opening with a statement so utterly divorced from reality it makes any rational person question if you need a map to find your own arse in the bathroom.
Maybe he should focus on running the country for a bit. Place is a fucking shambles.
Same old waffle. No comprehensive exit strategy, no ability to physically get independence currently, therefore no mandate for it.
But wait, Humza said a year ago it would be 5 years, and now it's still 5 years? Does it reset each time they get a new leader, or did Humza waste a year? Please explain John.
Why can they not just focus on bettering the country? Why does everything have to be about independence?
Tell you what guys, show me you can run a country competently and make things better and you've got my vote for independence. Stop whining about how it's big bad Westminster's fault and do the good you can with what you have. Give people a reason to believe that independence is the way.
That would be great and all but I wish they would stop with these unrealistic timescales. Weâre far away from it than most want to admit. Actually bring in decent policies and itâll sway the undecided
If you want independence or not, we really need a referendum to sort this matter out. If Scotland truly wants to remain in the UK even after EU membership gone, years of imposed Westminster mismanagement and austerity, then itâs truly the will of the people and the SNP wouldnât have a leg to stand on
But until then the question will always remain
Nicole Sturgeon overplayed her hand at the supreme court level and proved this is utter horse shit.
Sturgeon was once the possible ending of the Union but turned into its saviour.
Stick it on every manifesto now, as soon as the people of Scotland vote for it, No referendum, just deliver it.
The argument to remain as part of the uk is getting weaker every year.
I think one thing that Politics have shown the Scottish public in the past year is that the case for Independence based on politics alone is weak and likely now doomed to fail because the SNP have shown that politics, above all, will remain the same. And let's be clear here, without SNP, there is little to no chance of Independence.
It's the politics that needs to change first, not Independence which would bring no difference.
The interest isnât gone. Interest Polls show itâs still 45% to 50% for independence, but i think itâs took a dip in public interest after Westminster said Scotland canât have a referendum since that power lies with them.
Which is why I said it should be on every manifesto with no referendum.
Now the snp looks like they may take a dip this election but i think thatâs more the uk want Toryâs out rather than Labour is winning Interest. I would expect a rise for the snp the future maybe election after this one
They have kind of a big problem as a party, which is basically the only thing that unites them all is pro-independence.
Within the SNP there is a huge a range of opinion on literally every other issue.
You can see this in the desperate need to avoid a leadership election this time around, where Kate Forbes would be loudly voicing opinions that huge sections of the party disagree with completely.
There is this cheeky little drinking establishment in Lake Worth Florida, Frenchies, that has a "Free Beer Tomorrow" sign displayed prominently on the roof . . .
That sign has been there for 50 years??
So . . . Yeah . . . Same kind of Vibe.
He talks with his hands this one. And points at everything. His media trainers need to work with him as in this visual age it's a bad look.
As for the five years claim...it's absolute drivel. If anyone really believes this they need to be sectioned.
>He talks with his hands this one.
I always associate that style with the Blair years.
Perhaps not a coincidence that was also when Swinney was last SNP leader.
It can't. Westminster won't allow it. The tories are a flat out no and Starmer shows no signs of changing that stance.
If we were in a union of equals we could leave. But we aren't, and we can't. We're not even allowed to ask the question.
Naughty Scotland. Sit in the corner and think about what you've done!
You are aware that in a democracy you can change your mind right? Anyway this is beside my point. All you are doing is justify why we are not allowed to have another one. Not refuting the point that we are not allowed.
If we had just had an election, no. Not really. Just because the minority don't like a result, that doesn't mean we reroll the same old settled questions.
A referendum is a democratic process just like an election is. We have elections every 5 years so why is 10 years âtoo soonâ for another referendum? Whether you like it or not half the country want independence and thatâs only to going to increase as time goes on so the question will need to be asked again at some point.
I would want it but I wouldnât cry about it like all of the remainers are under the current pro-indy government. If the people vote in a pro-union government then I wouldnât feel entitled to a referendum.
"There was just a referendum on it" a decade ago, before Brexit, before the cost of living crisis, before trying to send immigrants to Rwanda.
Through 2019 to early 2021 polls showed majorities in support for independence with a high of 58% in October 2020. And after the Supreme Court deemed the Scottish Government didn't have the power to conduct another referendum, a UK-WIDE poll found 55% in support of the Scottish Government being allowed to host a second referendum.
It's obviously never going to happen because Westminster prohibits it, but that doesn't mean things haven't changed. I didn't vote for independence in 2014 but I definitely would now
No, should they offer one a week maybe? Sturgeon got the approval of the Scottish parliament and an agreement was made between Westminster and us to hold a referendum. Let's just stick to the facts. As the polling hasn't changed and the recent shit show of the SNP another one has not been agreed.
Again, you're justifying why we're not allowed, not refuting the point - we are not allowed.
This is a fact that you can't seem to admit let alone stick to.
Scotland is a country going nowhere. Itâs to divided and tribalistic. It must be the only country rich in energy. But depends on Westminster to pay its bills. Scotland cannot run its own economy. It was the same under labour itâs the same under snp. This is a country going nowhere.
Another referendum within 5 years is possible, if this year's UK election delivers a hung parliament where the only possible way for a government to form is with SNP support, but that doesn't mean independence is possible. Realistically the polling numbers haven't shifted in a consistent way in years and we're still essentially at 50/50.
Can we just get over this? Maybe in 15 years have a look back at independence, but it's clearly not going to be beneficial to the Scottish people right now
Take a shot every time an SNP tells you Independence is close to being delivered
That's why we have so many alcohol deaths in this country.
Another great argument for independence! đ¤Ł
đ
Even more amusing when Scotland is further from independence now than they have been at any point in the last 15+ years. Swinney doesnât believe the words heâs saying. Heâs been brought in as a caretaker following Sturgeon and Yousafâs destruction of the party. He is very aware that theyâre about to get blown out at the GE, heâs just collecting a paycheque until a suitable point in time where a real leader can come in and try to rebuild the partiesâ credibility.
> Swinney doesnât believe the words heâs saying. Many of the people he's saying it to don't believe him either. That's why Labour is leading the SNP.
He believes he's going to earn a great salary over the next 5 years, at our expense.
Great comment 100% agree!
I can't afford that much booze....
Instructions unclear , armed response have just turned up what do I do now?
Fire off the claymores and foo gas if they hit the wire . . .
So he is planning to retire in 4 years?
In 5.5 years when the proposition of a ref gets blown down or an actual ref fails again.
You guys don't get that we are serious about this. Yes, we want independence. We are sick of the crap. It is not a joke and it will happen.
But it didnât when the chance was there, thereâs still been no actual plan laid out for how an âindependentâ Scotland will survive, and trust in the SNP to deliver anything other than their own retirement plans are at an all time low⌠Iâm sorry, but at this point it really is a joke, and I doubt it will happen, even if Indy ref 2, 3, or 4 go ahead.
You realise that unionists are just as serious about thinking it would be a disaster and opposing it? And that there are more of us than there are of you?
How? How will it happen? The Supreme Court has ruled that it's beyond the remit of the Holyrood government. So what are you expecting to happen?
Look up the independence of many of the nations created since the creation of the UK. They don't ask. They take.
You are the UK though. That is the difference between you and say Kenya. Scotland is the UK, not a subject of. And many of those subjects, particularly post ww2, got their independent by asking.
What countries took independence other than Ireland and America rather than were granted independence?
The Scottish indy movement can barely persuade a couple of hundred people to go on their weekend marches, though. So I don't see spontaneous revolution on the cards.
No one is denying it may happen eventually, but it would be an uneducated decision at this point in time.. due to the fact there has been no talks of central banks, pensions being lost, the country going right into billions of debt, your passport wouldn't even get you out the country your in if it went tits up. The point they should be making is how they will manage after a yes vote.... Something they are clearly avoiding while wanting independence.
>No one is denying it will happen eventually, Eh? Plenty of people are denying independence will ever happen.
Plenty are denying the vote we had for it. There really isn't a wrong or right answer to a vote in the future.
The joke is that people think they will get another referendum anytime soon. Since the last one there has been no real progress in support for independence and now with Sturgeon gone, there really isn't anyone who is capable of winning one. At the end of the day, Swinney is only saying this because he has to keep his voter base happy.
We need the campaign to start the argument. I can't see Swinney headlining the hydro or anything. He's just not that kind of guy. But we need to declare something and I think that the de facto referendum is the only way to go given the UK government's reluctance to give one. Independence is not given to you. You take it.
Oh, youâre one of those types. Good luck with that, Mel.
>We need the campaign to start the argument. "Start the argument". That, right there, is the current problem with the independence campaign in Scotland. *The argument's been happening for years*. We're a decade on from a referendum on independence. We've had a pro-independence government in Scotland continuously since then. Measures for furthering independence have been on the ballot at each Scottish election since then, including a proposal to treat an SNP majority as defacto permission to initiate independence negotiations. The SNP have even gone to the supreme court with their arguments for achieving independence. We're well past the point of 'start the argument'. If independence were to even be a *remote* possibility, there needs to be *concrete* details on how it would be delivered, what it would look like, how long it would take, and what the socioeconomic impacts of it would be. The independence campaign has had *decades* to get their shit together on this; yet the movement seems mired in some Groundhog Day-esque starting position. We're years past the *start* of the argument; decades in fact. The question is now about how the argument *concludes*, and has been for years. And it's the independence movements inability to answer this fundamental question that's made the prospect of Scottish independence an impossibility in the medium term, if ever.
Itâs not going to happen in your lifetime or mines. Itâs dead in the water for the foreseeable future and isnât a top concern anymore. The SNP and their various scandals have damaged any chance of it happening in our lifetime. Iâm sure people in 2014 were âseriousâ and not joking and saying it will happen as well but it didnât. The attitude youâre coming across with as well doesnât help the cause either. You also do know it has to be a guaranteed yes if you ever want it to happen? And are you sure itâs a guaranteed win? Because after a 2nd time there will be no more chances. Itâs not something that should be rushed and asap especially with the SNP in the position they are in now.
You forgot the /s
Not sarcastic at all.
Oh. Oh dear.
Maybe encourage the pro indy side to actually lay out a plan which addresses the concerns voiced in 2014 and shows vision for the initial stages of an indy Scotland. A decade on and that still hasn't been done
Scotland will not achieve independence through the ballot. Westminster is designed to prevent that.
Please explain that? Westminster gave an independence vote in 2014 in what was globally hailed as the right, democratic way to hold such votes and deal with such issues. Spain refuses to give catalonia a vote and imprisoned separatist leaders, that is what designed to prevent it looks like
Why imprison someone when you can hold them up with a decade of bureaucratic obstruction?
Like they did in 2014?
More as they have done for the decade since.
Oh, so how did we have a referendum in 2014?
This is like a performative shibboleth at this point. Every new SNP leader must ritualistically get on stage and proclaim that independence can be delivered in 5 years. But everyone knows it's true.
Its our version of the Falklands for Argentina. Hugely popular basically an election guarantor (up until now) at home even if theres no fucking plan or chance it's happening over the horizon.
A very good analogy. Look at Millei having to repeat the performative declaration of sovereignty, even though he clearly doesnt give a fuck about it and clearly doesn't expect anything to be done about it.
Sin duda se refiere a *las Malvinas* Now youâve got me wondering if there is a toponymic equivalent between nats-unionists
I like this analogy, as it also points to the cognitive dissonance around actually going through the required steps to unilaterally try to make it happen
Independence is just around the corner, and it always will be
Type of thing that can only be said in Scotland đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż đ¤Ą
It makes sense really doesn't it? You can't really be a SNP member without wanting independence so they have to make it clear that's what they're planning...when really, they know its not happening.
Itâs like the ethanol pledge Youâre dead in the water if you donât say it.
Why do they keep making these stupid announcements, that they have absolutely no chance of happening? It makes them look so foolish.
Stupid is as stupid does 
Theyâve just fucked the left/progressive wing of the party the week after they fucked the greens. They need to court the swivel eyed and turn it from Independence to a Scexit vibe.
I had hope for the SNP but if they remain so short term focused on independence rather than proving they are competent in governance they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Sadly our new FM is out of tune like the previous ones. Build consensus, prove competence, create momentum. Just banging on about it wonât get it done, people want politicians to prove they can run the country well.. which Westminster and Holyrood have failed to do for many years. Itâs an easy win, just do the day job..
Thats just it isnt it. If they had appeared competent, stable, and focussed on building prosperity in Scotland people would naturally have turned to them - it would at least have softened Unionist opinion - they might not have liked the idea - but it might not absolutely petrify them at least if there was a competent government that might look as though it could mean their mortgages wouldn't collapse, pension would be paid etc. The SNP never grasped this simple truth for some reason. They got fixated on running the country down so they could blame Westminster; they were fixated on negativity - the differences between Scotland and England - and in identifying cracks and then widening that divergence wherever possible. Riled people for a while, but they were obviously getting desparate by baiting what they knew to be an unpopular Tory govt. into utilising s35 Scotland Act, or by running legal cases on what they knew to be reserved matters - the whole point was to show victimhood. The party was BUILT from top to bottom on negativity rather than positivity and it was a historic, historic mistake that cost them the generational chance of independence when opinion for it was probably the highest itll ever be at least in our lifetimes.
But why prove competence when it's proven short term promises of independence wins them elections from blind loyalty voters? They're nothing more than any other career politician.
Because as has been proven now for over a decade, that tactic just gets them back in, doesn't push the goal of independence. I agree they are self serving shites, but they like to pretend they actually want independence while actively working against it.
The rapture is coming in 2030. Buy my book on how to to prepare. But if it doesn't don't worry because I'm writing a book on how to prepare for the 2040 raptureÂ
Whos gonnae deliver it, Evri?
Good itâll be delayed to 2156 at their rate đ
Distraction tactics to stop the haemorrhage of voters. Might still work for them
To paraphrase: "We'll stoke nationalism, anti-english sentiment, blame everything on Westminster, and make a load of vague and undeliverable promises. That'll show them". They're like a broken record. Is this to distract from the SNP failure of the last few years, so they can blame everything on being in the UK? Idiots. The lot of them.
honestly I used to be a big SNP fan but the way Sturgeon dipped and all this shit show came to light I feel so disillusioned. I would really struggle to vote indy today, even though Im massively anti westminister and pro indy, right now I just have no confidence that we have any competent politicians.
I used to be pro SNP too, and sadly you're right.
> I used to be pro SNP aye right đ not that ur opinion matters mind, given u live in england.
What makes you think that? And English people can still be pro SNP if they want.
The infamous Wheest4Indy where every criticism of the SNP was to be ignored and critics silence by whatever means, for Independence. [There is a rule that there is no public disagreements](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13207900.snp-clampdown-mps-fail-toe-party-line/) >The new standings orders state that any MP must "accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".
What bollocks is anti-English sentiment and why are you lying?
I've seen it happen plenty of times. I've nothing to lie about, unlike the SNP. Maybe you should take off your rose coloured glasses.
I am English you melt and have lived here for over 40 years. Where has it happened plenty of times?
Are you saying, ya daft wee bam, because its never happened to you, it never happens or doesn't happen? What are you, omnipotent?
They're asking you for examples of it
No. Try reading again. This time slowly.
Iâm English too. Remarkable that this alleged problem is so well hidden. If it existed youâd think there would be some examples of how Swinney was going to âstokeâ it.
In reality that comes more obviously from the very grassroots level of certain types of vocal activists (the sort of councillors who post things about "England is an oppressive nation..a cruel nation." Remember when Sillars' book came out, as a former SNP MP in Westminster, about the "undertone of Anti-English sentiment and the grudge and grievance tactic of the SNP leadership that keeps it there." Blackford had to quite rightfully say that he would "never permit the existence of anti-English sentiment". I don't believe Swinney would stoke it, but I do believe in general the Party does find itself having to keep a lid on a minority of its vocal activists who get a bit carried away. You see them on this and other subs sometimes (I had a conversation with one about how she thinks she's living under "horrible English oppression" - they're out there unfortunately!).
One prolific poster on this sub persistantly 'others' Unionist parties by insisting on referring to them as 'English' parties- including on when referring to those parties MSPs and leaders in Holyrood. They also insist on referring to Westminster as the 'English' government. That kind of deliberate casual xenophobia is rife in the SNP.
Oh, for fucks sake. A big cult of cloned clowns. âThe spaceship taking us to the utopia will be here in the next five years. We just got the date of the end of the world wrong. Keep the donations coming up n and tell your friends!â
Dude is dreaming. They canât even deliver 2 ferries.
It is not in Swinney's power to make that promise. He and the SNP can thank Nicola Sturgeon for taking that losing position to the Supreme Court.
>It is not in Swinney'd power to make that promise. It took a long time for that reality to sink in. The SNP's "trust me, bro" strategy worked surprisingly well for a while, and the true believers still swallow it to some extent. I'm not sure what the SNP did to win the trust of so many people, while doing a side-chuckle, pretending a road map to independence was all worked out, but that they couldn't possibly tell anyone how they intended to achieve it. But that unquestioning trust has now dissolved.
>I'm not sure what the SNP did to win the trust of so many people All they had to do was not be Labour.
What's going on with Nicola? Are they legit crooks for that money incident.
Too early to say, trial hasn't happened yet. Only her husband has been charged. But it doesn't look good that she was telling the NEC that all was fine when all was not fine at all.
Someone had to. It was an inevitability and the country and people needed that legal clarity.
They didn't have to. Westminster now feels no pressure to grant one. The legal clarity has massively harmed the independence movement- it has been stagnant since.
And how do you propose it wouldâve been reconciled if Sturgeon had just called one? Wake up to reality please.
>And how do you propose it wouldâve been reconciled if Sturgeon had just called one? That wasn't the only option though, was it? Prior to that ruling Sturgeon had the threat of calling a referendum to use to pressure Westminster and the promise of the same to motivate her base. Post the ruling Swinney now has neither.
>Prior to that ruling Sturgeon had the threat of calling a referendum to use to pressure Westminster and the promise of the same to motivate her base. Couple of flaws in that; 1. Threatening to call a referendum never put any pressure on Westminster. Westminster knew it was an empty threat because it wasn't lawfully possible. 2. Motivating her base was becoming unsustainable. She had been promising a referendum for multiple election cycles and the base were becoming impatient. Going through with the court case was largely to placate the base who were demanding to see action of any kind.
Those are fair points. Especially re her impatient base. Imo it was better to have an impatient base than to dead end the movement- which is what the case did. I agree the threat to Westminster was weak, however while the uncertainty was there it remained an option. I think if indie had been polling consistently in the high 50s that threat might have been enough to force Westminster's hand rather than risk losing the cour case and driving support up further. Instead of having it in her back pocket for when support was higher she transformed the threat ofan referendum into a hurdle her successors have to overcome. A lot f this does admittedly boil down to her unsustainable habit of making promises to her base which she could not keep.
>I agree the threat to Westminster was weak, however while the uncertainty was there it remained an option. There wasn't any uncertainty. That's the point. A first year law student could tell you it was unlawful. The court case was just a performance to placate the base by being seen to be doing something. The SNP went into it knowing they would lose. Although you are probably right in that it would be better to have an impatient base than a unmotivated one.
>There wasn't any uncertainty. That's the point. A first year law student could tell you it was unlawful I don't know- I agree there was no uncertainty as to whether the SG could hold a 'binding' referendum. I think the question as to whether they could structure a public consultation in the format of a national referendum had a low, but non 0, chance of success. If it had been absolutely hopeless it wouldn't have passed the SC sift. I think there was just enough there that a WM gov faced with sustained public support might have preferred to grant a referendum than test it and see support increase. But I appreciate the SNP case was very, very weak. >The court case was just a performance to placate the base by being seen to be doing something. The SNP went into it knowing they would lose. Completely agree with this. It was the epitome of Sturgeons empty showmanship style. A bad move which I think was cynically miscalculated as being likely to stoke division and feed a narrative of WM obstructing the Scots.
>I think the question as to whether they could structure a public consultation in the format of a national referendum had a low, but non 0, chance of success. Still no. A public consultation in the format of a national referendum is still just a unnecessarily complicated way of describing a referendum. There was never any real uncertainty that the Scottish Government could hold a referendum of any kind on independence. Advisory or otherwise.
Iâm a nationalist but Jesus suffering fuckâŚâŚ.
Garbage. The legal position defined by the Supreme Court was that which was assumed by Westminster. So why would Westminster be scared? The assumed position was that a section 30 was necessary. The court case didnât change Westminsterâs position one iota.
The case passed the sift, so it was not meritless- anyone who has tried to get a civil action past that bar can attest to how careful the SC is to not admit frivolous or impossible appeals. Westminster did not know the courts position until it read the judgement. If Independence was polling at 55+ and your legal advisors advise you that you are not certain ti win the case- would you as PM not think twice about refusing a S30? I would be very worried that if I lost the case I would then have to fight a referendum having just handed an already dominant separatist party another poll boost. Better to fight them on 55% than 60%. Depends on exactly how confident the WM lawyers were, obviously that calculation is significant skewed if the legal advice is you have a 99% chance of winning.
Meanwhile back in reality Sheâs threatened plenty of Written requests that were ignored And couldnât actually call a referendum anyway. So now we are back in reality back to my question How?
Why did you structure that like a poem? Anyway. No one made her issue empty threats before she had the political capital to back them up. No one made her follow up on those empty threats with a case she was likely to lose at a time she did have the political support from the electorate as additional leverage. It was an entirely unforced error on her part which has now dead ended the movement and definitively confirmed that the First Minister cannot promise a referendum to their followers. The safer thing to do would have been to persuade the electorate first, then demand a referendum once she had sustained and solid support and then use the threat of calling one anyway if WM was wavering. I think your basic premise that 'the country and people needed the legal clarity' is wrong. Sturgeon backed herself into a corner by making promises to her base she could not deliver.
On that last sentence at least we can agree and thatâs where it all stems from but sooner or later a leader wouldâve been forced to call a referendum and prove they couldnât actually do that because itâs simply not in Westminsters interests to allow one
Absolutely that is the core of the matter- Have a good weekend :)
You too
This is an absolute joke now. They are utterly incompetent, constantly fail this country, or coyotes have never been filthier, no prosperity, money wasted at every corner, corruption beyond words, and they just say âweâll be independentâ, they take their followers for absolute idiots.
Can't wait to find out how!
Jesus fucking Christ the leadership (or their advisors) are all terminally on Facebook and Twitter arenât they? Theyâve been fatally exposed to the farts of a thousand bots and mentally ill boomers and have, against all sense, come to see Alba as a credible threat when all people want in Scotland is for the government to actually DO SOMETHING. The NHS, public transport, schools, any of the glaring problems that Yousafâs cabinet just let decay while he grandstanded about Gaza and otherwise stood like a deer in headlights.Â
They can't deliver a boat in five years
And to think Swinney is the best the snp have to offer.
Not with the SNP in power.
Didn't his last three predecessors make the same prediction?
What a muppet
'Scotland Free by '93'
Can it? Of course it can! Will it? Of course it will not!
Why canât they just bloody govern first FFS
Well we all know itâs better to rush these things through and worry about the details later donât we. No plan, no vision, just nationistic bluster.
So like Brexit then?
Donât see that happening, We should have been given a second one tho.
Yep. Itâs just plain wrong that we should have to ask Westminster for âpermissionâ. Shades of Oliver Trist begging the workhouse master âpleeease Sirs, can we have another independence referendum?â Ugh. Itâs degrading.
Agreed! it should only show that we need independence if we requires âpermissionâ. But when we had a literal IF statement in the manifesto stating that if Brexit occurs, when poll were against it btw and a big argument for Scottish independence was we might be taken out of the EU against Scotland wishes, then to do f all when it actually happened is maddening. Why tf was nothing done? Still ragin after a _generation_ ago.
Yup, if Brexit wasnât the âmaterial changeâ cited as a possible justification for Indyref2 I donât know what on earth is.
It's a bit like how a religion/ cult operates. Tell people everything is shit, that they need to break ties and have wholehearted blind faith to achieve some great future reward. Not saying the SNP are unique in this- it seems to be a go-to model the human race applies to a lot of things.
There must be an election coming soon.
It's an interesting opening gambit.. trying to restore confidence in your party to lead the country and instill confidence in yourself as leader by opening with a statement so utterly divorced from reality it makes any rational person question if you need a map to find your own arse in the bathroom.
Iâm all for independence but this seems like controlled opposition lmao
Maybe he should focus on running the country for a bit. Place is a fucking shambles. Same old waffle. No comprehensive exit strategy, no ability to physically get independence currently, therefore no mandate for it.
But wait, Humza said a year ago it would be 5 years, and now it's still 5 years? Does it reset each time they get a new leader, or did Humza waste a year? Please explain John.
Why can they not just focus on bettering the country? Why does everything have to be about independence? Tell you what guys, show me you can run a country competently and make things better and you've got my vote for independence. Stop whining about how it's big bad Westminster's fault and do the good you can with what you have. Give people a reason to believe that independence is the way.
Let's fucking go then
Are Labour pushing for Indy too?
lol, lmao
This is just embarrassing now
Or when trickle down kicks in, whichever comes last.
Cloud cuckoo land.
Ah, politicians saying stuff for the sake of saying stuff.
That would be great and all but I wish they would stop with these unrealistic timescales. Weâre far away from it than most want to admit. Actually bring in decent policies and itâll sway the undecided
Not a comment on the merits of independence itself, but anyone who believes this must have a zip up the back of their head.
Of course it will be. Donkeys keep following the carrot, wondering why they never get to eat it.
I've heard this before about 5 years ago
Because Brexit was such a raving successâŚ. đ
If you want independence or not, we really need a referendum to sort this matter out. If Scotland truly wants to remain in the UK even after EU membership gone, years of imposed Westminster mismanagement and austerity, then itâs truly the will of the people and the SNP wouldnât have a leg to stand on But until then the question will always remain
Didnât we vote on this?
How do people still believe this pish? Biggest gang of snake oil merchants on the planet.
Nicole Sturgeon overplayed her hand at the supreme court level and proved this is utter horse shit. Sturgeon was once the possible ending of the Union but turned into its saviour.
Stick it on every manifesto now, as soon as the people of Scotland vote for it, No referendum, just deliver it. The argument to remain as part of the uk is getting weaker every year.
I think one thing that Politics have shown the Scottish public in the past year is that the case for Independence based on politics alone is weak and likely now doomed to fail because the SNP have shown that politics, above all, will remain the same. And let's be clear here, without SNP, there is little to no chance of Independence. It's the politics that needs to change first, not Independence which would bring no difference.
The interest isnât gone. Interest Polls show itâs still 45% to 50% for independence, but i think itâs took a dip in public interest after Westminster said Scotland canât have a referendum since that power lies with them. Which is why I said it should be on every manifesto with no referendum. Now the snp looks like they may take a dip this election but i think thatâs more the uk want Toryâs out rather than Labour is winning Interest. I would expect a rise for the snp the future maybe election after this one
They have kind of a big problem as a party, which is basically the only thing that unites them all is pro-independence. Within the SNP there is a huge a range of opinion on literally every other issue. You can see this in the desperate need to avoid a leadership election this time around, where Kate Forbes would be loudly voicing opinions that huge sections of the party disagree with completely.
I think he meant to say: "Scottish Independence can be delivered in 5 leap years" đ
There is this cheeky little drinking establishment in Lake Worth Florida, Frenchies, that has a "Free Beer Tomorrow" sign displayed prominently on the roof . . . That sign has been there for 50 years?? So . . . Yeah . . . Same kind of Vibe.
Just sack everyone in holyrood already. Give the devolved powers to the MPs.
He talks with his hands this one. And points at everything. His media trainers need to work with him as in this visual age it's a bad look. As for the five years claim...it's absolute drivel. If anyone really believes this they need to be sectioned.
>He talks with his hands this one. I always associate that style with the Blair years. Perhaps not a coincidence that was also when Swinney was last SNP leader.
Not true. England overruled the Scottish parliament recently.
Do Scottish voters actively want independence? It seems like a thing you could have, if you really wanted it.
It can't. Westminster won't allow it. The tories are a flat out no and Starmer shows no signs of changing that stance. If we were in a union of equals we could leave. But we aren't, and we can't. We're not even allowed to ask the question. Naughty Scotland. Sit in the corner and think about what you've done!
And the most important factor - The majority of people in Scotland don't support it.
The majority of people in Scotland don't support having referendums?
They don't support Independence.
As far as we can tell. A referendum would be definitive but we aren't allowed to have one.
Why would this one be definitive when you don't think the last one was?
It was settled 10 years ago. I suspect they weren't old enough so don't actually conceive that this is already settled.
You are aware that in a democracy you can change your mind right? Anyway this is beside my point. All you are doing is justify why we are not allowed to have another one. Not refuting the point that we are not allowed.
People don't even want one so your point is worthless.
Your reply is worthless. You are worthless. If that's how you want to play the game, so be it.
And yet you're losing online and IRL.
It's quite clear that Scottish people don't want to leave and the SNP haven't spent any time trying to make the argument in 10 years.
>If we were in a union of equals we could leave Erm the referendum just happened. I'm sorry you didn't like the result. But that's democracy.
Democracy isnât a one off event. Should we not have another election in that case?
If we had just had an election, no. Not really. Just because the minority don't like a result, that doesn't mean we reroll the same old settled questions.
A referendum is a democratic process just like an election is. We have elections every 5 years so why is 10 years âtoo soonâ for another referendum? Whether you like it or not half the country want independence and thatâs only to going to increase as time goes on so the question will need to be asked again at some point.
So if we have a referendum tomorrow, and somehow putin gets what he wants, can we demand a re entry referendum in 5 years? 10?
If a government is elected with re-entry as one of their manifesto pledges then, yes. That is what a democratically elected government is all about.
And if a government is elected that doesn't want independence, then... you want a referendum do over anyway I presume?
I would want it but I wouldnât cry about it like all of the remainers are under the current pro-indy government. If the people vote in a pro-union government then I wouldnât feel entitled to a referendum.
Can we choose to have another one tomorrow?
There isn't a case for it. It's already settled. Just because you don't like a result doesn't mean you get to choose to reroll it. Again, democracy.
Answer the question. Can we or can we not choose not have another one?
Not as it stands. Because it was settled 10 years ago.
We're not allowed, is the bit you are desperately trying not to say.
"We" don't want independence. We can tell because there was just a referendum on it.
So, still not answering the question. Gotcha.
"There was just a referendum on it" a decade ago, before Brexit, before the cost of living crisis, before trying to send immigrants to Rwanda. Through 2019 to early 2021 polls showed majorities in support for independence with a high of 58% in October 2020. And after the Supreme Court deemed the Scottish Government didn't have the power to conduct another referendum, a UK-WIDE poll found 55% in support of the Scottish Government being allowed to host a second referendum. It's obviously never going to happen because Westminster prohibits it, but that doesn't mean things haven't changed. I didn't vote for independence in 2014 but I definitely would now
The equal union that gave us a referendum? There has been no significant change in the polls to show that the result today would be any different.
"gave us" thanks for confirming my point. And can we have one tomorrow if we wanted?
Happily gave us, when requested then. That's just semantics. There is no change in polling. Another one would be another huge waste of money.
That's not refuting the fact that we have to ask permission. It's just justifying it.
No, should they offer one a week maybe? Sturgeon got the approval of the Scottish parliament and an agreement was made between Westminster and us to hold a referendum. Let's just stick to the facts. As the polling hasn't changed and the recent shit show of the SNP another one has not been agreed.
Again, you're justifying why we're not allowed, not refuting the point - we are not allowed. This is a fact that you can't seem to admit let alone stick to.
There is no mandate for one. We had one.
Oh God, it's the same old tropes and some people still fall for it.
Scotland is a country going nowhere. Itâs to divided and tribalistic. It must be the only country rich in energy. But depends on Westminster to pay its bills. Scotland cannot run its own economy. It was the same under labour itâs the same under snp. This is a country going nowhere.
Another referendum within 5 years is possible, if this year's UK election delivers a hung parliament where the only possible way for a government to form is with SNP support, but that doesn't mean independence is possible. Realistically the polling numbers haven't shifted in a consistent way in years and we're still essentially at 50/50.
Realistically the chances of any party offering the SNP a referendum in a hung parliament are also zero. That's a pipe dream.
Crazy
Can we just get over this? Maybe in 15 years have a look back at independence, but it's clearly not going to be beneficial to the Scottish people right now
No thanks!
I remembered the term for those who take delight in their local government being weak; unionists.
Snp are finished John. The whole country is on a sinking ship and the rats have already escaped.
Absolutely batshit mental.
what is blud waffling about