SNP Election

What's wrong with Kate Forbes?

All they have to do is convince 60% or more of the Scottish based voters at each Westminster and Holyrood election over a 10 year period to vote for unambiguously independence supporting parties and that should convince our parliament at Westminster to sanction another referendum. If that referendum then delivers a 60% vote for Indy then that goal will be delivered after which you can correctly start describing Scotland as a country for the first time in your life - but bear in mind that all of the gerrymandering that the SNP were allowed to get away with in 2014 will not be tolerated next time, and that the Scottish people across the UK will be given an opportunity to express their preference too, not just the people residing in Scotland.

Why ask “why 60%” twice? Do you think, just as with the Indy question,  that if you keep asking people the same question you will eventually get the answer you want and only then accept what people have to say?

When it comes to Scottish Independence I am far from neutral and have never claimed to be neutral. I believe that it would be economically catastrophic for the Scottish people to go it alone, have never seen anything remotely close to credible to suggest otherwise despite years of asking Indy types to produce the evidence to support their hollow claims of a bounteous lifestyle for all, and therefore consider independence to be by far the clearest present political threat to my, and to the Scottish people’s, well-being. However, as I keep explaining, being neither a nationalist nor a unionist, I am ideologically neutral on the matter and am therefore open to new information -so if your or anybody else can credibly demonstrate that we would be better off as an independent nation then I would get right behind that idea. Why are you so incapable of grasping that simple point? Does the fact that someone who is strongly opposed to independence for a purely pragmatic reason that you can’t provide an answer to, and who is not a bigoted ideological zealot like yourself, just not compute with your extremist prejudices?

Scots living outside of Scotland were allowed to vote in 2014, but only those registered as being overseas. Unlike those residing abroad, and despite your determination to deny the constitutional realities, those Scots residing in the rest of the UK were still living in our country (just a different part than the Scottish part) but we’re denied a vote despite the fact that they would have been much more directly and severely impacted by a NO outcome than many of those overseas Scots because they would have found themselves living as aliens in the place where they were residing rather than as citizens. Where is the logic in that and why on earth shouldn’t they have their say on something of such high impact to them?

I assume that the majority of rUK Scots would vote NO because they would not wish to become foreigners in what is currently their own country, because they are enjoying the benefits of the union in a way that neither you nor I are by living elsewhere in the country as UK citizens, and because the SNP ScotGov did not want them to vote in 2014 (which is a slam dunk reason for believing that they would have voted heavily in favour of remaining part of the UK in my view).

There won’t be another referendum without the approval of parliament and there won’t be parliamentary approval unless and until there is clear and sustained evidence that independence is probably the clear and sustained preference of the people resident in Scotland at least.That’s why 60% and that’s why 10 years. Similarly, but more importantly, there will be a requirement for a super-majority in favour of independence in any such referendum too because the result has to have losers consent if it is to be settled once and for all. I am not sure if 60% would be enough to achieve that but, as we have seen from the 2014 referendum, 55.4% was not enough to achieve that so it has to be more than that to have any chance of settling the matter. Possibly a 2/3ds share of vote might make better sense

There are not continual refusals to hold a referendum. We have already had one recently so clearly that is not the case. There is simply not strong enough nor sustained enough support to warrant another referendum at this stage in the eyes of the majority at Westminster, and another referendum will only happen if and when the majority at Westminster back it, just as they did in 2014. And, next time around, the UK government will take things much more seriously and prevent all of the SNP gerrymandering moves of 2014 - so, whether you like it or not , that will mean a super majority, adult only voting, a different and more neutral question and answer option on the ballot paper, and Scots from rUK being actively encouraged to vote.

We reserve the right to campaign for an Independent Scotland. Why shouldn't we continue? When we win, the victory will be done through the democratic process, not by chicanery and gerrymandering as you are suggesting should happen. 
When you joined the former forum, you came on proclaiming that you could be persuaded, the mark of a neutral. Your every post from then on showed you up for what you are: a raving ultra unionist.
Approximately 50% of Scots believe in Independence, a figure which you ignore. That means only 50% are happy with the present constitutional arrangement.

Only people on the electoral roll, were able to vote.

You might say 60% and 10 years but that is not how democracy works. We, in Scotland, remember the actions of the 1979 referendum when we were robbed because of the ridiculous 40% rule
In any case, almost 10 years have passed. Tens of thousands of young voters would now be able to vote. This is a fact that you cannot stand. Hence the undemocratic, artificial suggestions you proffer

Bigoted? Extreme prejudices? Where do you get that from? Examples please! The only extremist I see is you! You're the one spouting anti-democratic nonsense.
 
People had to be on the electoral roll to be able to vote. That includes people born in England/Wales/NI and also foreign nationals. The people who live in the country are best able to decide the country's future. Those who left, lost their right to have a say. I have to say that the franchise arrangements were approved by the Electoral Commission, it also agreed that the question asked was reasonable and fair. Scot Gov conducted a well run and inclusive Referendum. Compare that to Brexit when EU nationals were not allowed to vote simply because they could have swung the vote the Remain way.
Many countries allow dual citizenship. Are you saying that the rUK government would prevent such an option to its citizens?

What planet are you on? There have been numerous denials of Scottish democracy. On numerous occasions May, Johnson & Sunak have denied Scotland the right to find out what the electorate want.

You obviously are not a democrat! 

You are obviously so embarrassed about your original thoughts. Not only that, your recent responses show a complete lack of reality. 
What makes you think the UK will decide anything? Can you tell me what was wrong with the running of Indy Ref? The Electoral Commission was happy, the UK Government was happy. But you, you would have insisted on undemocratic hurdles placed in the way of the movement.to try and stop the surge of Nationalism. As it turned out, the nay sayers won anyway, but it was close.
Now, because the population demographic tends to swing our way, you think it ok to act undemocratically.
Why ask about Scottish democracy? Why not ask about UK democracy? You know, democracy, the concept you want trampled on to suit your own ends!
What fake grievances? You know, you make these accusations without evidence to back your fevered imagination.
Once In A Generation remark was made by one man, not the YES movement. No one in the YES movement accepted any such premise.
It is now coming up to 10 years since the Referendum. Plenty has changed in the intervening years. Enough to warrant a fresh plebiscite.
If NI can have one every 7 years why not Scotland?
And as for your argument that the Government would decide whether or not to hold a unity referendum, the only reason for the need for one would be a rise in the Catholic, Republican population, which, I believe, is already in the majority. Given this, the Government would have to weigh up a refusal against a dissatisfied large section of the made up region. And we all know where dissatisfaction led us before.

They love to trot out that 'once in a generation' remark to justify denying Scotland another referendum.

" ...how long is a political generation?

This becomes a bit like speculating on the length of a piece of string. Scotland Office minister Douglas Ross took the scattergun approach of saying it should be "30, 40, or 50 years" in an interview with the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme on Wednesday.

His boss Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, had earlier suggested a vote shouldn't take place during Ms Sturgeon's lifetime - which based on the average life expectancy for women of her age would be at least another couple of decades yet."

www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175

"Boris Johnson has reiterated his position that a Scottish independence referendum should be a "once-in-a-generation" vote.

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme, the prime minister said the gap between referendums on Europe - the first in 1975 and the second in 2016 - was "a good sort of gap"."

www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55521732