Nicola Sturgeon to resign as First Minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf elected as new First Minister.

[Purple Train]

As if to add insult to injury, you retort a myth so easily debunked, a child could prove its inadequacy in convincing anyone.

Could you please inform as to what that myth is, and debunk it? It may just be the time, but I see neither myth nor rebuttal.

Unless the myth is that the 2014 referendum - which both sides agreed was "once-in-a-generation" (quote: A Salmond) - should suddenly become not so until a certain result is produced, which I agree that a child can easily debunk.

I might add (before I am declared to be a Scotland-phobic Tory, which would be an incorrect definition on both counts) that I have the same issue with proposals for a second Brexit referendum, much as I would love to rejoin the EU. You cannot have a once-in-a-generation referendum and then try and have another referendum quickly in order to get a different result.

 

[GusB]

Unless the myth is that the 2014 referendum - which both sides agreed was "once-in-a-generation" (quote: A Salmond) - should suddenly become not so until a certain result is produced, which I agree that a child can easily debunk.

*Sigh*

The "once in a generation" thing was nothing more a soundbite, not a legally binding agreement. How many times have politicians said something along the lines of "this is an historic moment"? Yet it's constantly being used as a stick to beat the SNP/independence movement with.

Quite frankly, it's old hat and it's becoming very boring.

 

[takno]

*Sigh*

The "once in a generation" thing was nothing more a soundbite, not a legally binding agreement. How many times have politicians said something along the lines of "this is an historic moment"? Yet it's constantly being used as a stick to beat the SNP/independence movement with.

Quite frankly, it's old hat and it's becoming very boring.

It was an endlessly-repeated soundbite which everybody I spoke to at the time meant just what it said right up until the result didn't go the way that some of them wanted

 

[Blindtraveler]

I have to say that I agree with both of the above posts, firstly that the once in a generation sound by was just that, a sound byte. I also however agree that it was overused to the point of making it sound extremely believable and that until the result did not go the way they wanted it, even the SNP had it in about 20 places in their own publicity and social media, giving the impression that it was at most, legally binding, or at the very least was a fairly strong gentleman's agreement that would be stuck to for at the very least the next couple of parliamentary terms, this in theory should have taken us to Q1 2021. Had it indeed been either a non-written agreement or a legally binding one. I don't think that even the most die hard indi supporter would have thought it practical to be running a potentially life changing referendum at this point or at any point in the proceeding 12 months given that we were in the middle of a global pandemic and that even some of these very same supporters were actively voicing their thoughts that the priorities of government quite rightly or wrongly depending on your views lay elsewhere. I had wondered myself if they would either run an online poll which would have been very interesting purely from a voter turnout point of view as whilst everyone was staying at home, what else did we have to do other than answer lots and lots and lots of online poles and surveys, I know that I certainly did, or run a second separate ballot as part of the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections, this would have been well within the boundaries of what was practically possible and safe and legal at the time but neither of the above was done


The problem with the much over used "once in a generation" thing was that it did rather give the anti-independence movement plus Westminster plus the media plus a whole ton of other people a pretty big stick to whack them with, regardless or not of where it was legally binding or formally agreed or anything, it's certainly not a marketing strap line or even a careless comment on a radio phone inn that I would have chosen back in 2014, particularly if I was anything to do with either the SNP or another pro independence movement as we have seen and witnessed exactly what the aftermath has been of doing so.


My own personal view is, and always has been, regardless of sound bites that a pole such as this or the brexit referendum or anything similar should only happen once every 10 years or so and I would feel the same regardless of topic. In other words, much as I totally disagree with the concept and find both the current first minister of Scotland's "summer of independence" and the most recent in his series of white papers about citizenship and passports a pointless distraction from the day job at the very least and offensive and insulting at most, I do agree that if the question is going to be asked once again then sometime around now it's probably appropriate

what I would say though is that once the result has been declared and the dust has settled, both sides should put the issue to bed and move on. The fact that both sides of a highly controversial and in this case life changing subject are happy to continue to squabble long after the returning officers have gone home to bed simply detracts from the referendum element and I would say purely based on evidence of friends and family disengages political interest and you then got the effort of re-engaging people next time you want to ask them either the same question or a different one, and there might be a time when we genuinely genuinely do need as many of the eligible electorate to turn out and vote for something either because it will make a huge difference to our country and it's well-being and economy or because we've got some radicalist government in power that wants to do something really really stupid and we as citizens need to put a stop to it.

 

[Falcon1200]

When a government is formed in the name of the head of state, after winning a mandate from the electorate, it is accepted that said government enacts said mandate. It is, after all, representative parliamentary democracy, by popular consent.

Labour and Tory have lost every single election since 2007, evidently, the voting public feel Independence is a priority among many others, and trust the SNP to mange the state better than the aforementioned parties.

Perhaps some of the voting public, as you say, 'trust the SNP to manage (actually, mange as you wrote might be a more accurate description) better' but do not actually support independence, and are quite happy to vote for an SNP Government but would vote No in a referendum? Besides, a mandate is one thing, great for campaigning for an election, but once in power the governing party has an overring duty to govern, effectively and responsibly.

As if to add insult to injury, you retort a myth so easily debunked

Please explain further.

Further, the supposition that the SG is using anything other than resources raised in Scotland isn't just misplaced, it highlights how little grasp you have of the finances of that state.

As a Scottish income tax, and Council tax (about to go up by just the 12.5%, if the SNP's latest 'progressive proposals are enacted) payer, I have a fair idea about our finances, and regardless have every right to complain when Scotland's money is being used, or rather wasted, in utterly pointless exercises; Especially when that same waster of money complains about lack of finance to address actual problems.

As an aside, Scotland is performing rather well.

Seriously? We must be living in different Scotlands. But if that is true.... who needs independence anyway?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

*Sigh*

The "once in a generation" thing was nothing more a soundbite, not a legally binding agreement. How many times have politicians said something along the lines of "this is an historic moment"? Yet it's constantly being used as a stick to beat the SNP/independence movement with.

Quite frankly, it's old hat and it's becoming very boring.

So next time any party gets elected to Government after promising lots of things in the election campaign and then quickly goes back on them, that will be absolutely fine, right? Because what was said during that election campaign was after all only soundbites and the opposition are just using them a stick to beat the Government with. And it's becoming old hat and very boring the way the opposition keeps pointing out that the Government has ignored its election pledges.

Or maybe it's that some of us have this old fashioned idea that when you promise something in an election campaign, the idea is you try - as far as circumstances allow - to stick to it after the election is over.

 

[cb a1]

Or maybe it's that some of us have this old fashioned idea that when you promise something in an election campaign, the idea is you try - as far as circumstances allow - to stick to it after the election is over.

and if they don't, then it's up to us as the electorate to punish them at the ballot box.

On the specific issue of 'once in a generation', Alex Salmond did not, in my opinion, have the authority to commit Scotland to this. He had, at the time, the authority to commit the SNP political party to this, but not the people of Scotland. I can't mind the exact wording, but no parliament is allowed to tie the hands of future parliaments and I would expect that political parties adopt a similar principle that the party cannot bind the hands of what the party decides in future.

It is thus, in my opinion, in the hands of the voters of Scotland to decide, when a post Alex Salmond SNP party decided to ignore Alex Salmond's 'once in a generation' soundbite, whether or not to vote for the SNP.

It really annoys me that democracy is somehow seen as 'owned' by political parties (not saying you believe this, it's a generic observation). Democracy lies with us the people - it is up to us to decide when the next referendum is (if ever) with our authority exercised through the ballot box. If we want to ignore what Alex Salmond said, then we can.

 

[takno]

and if they don't, then it's up to us as the electorate to punish them at the ballot box.

On the specific issue of 'once in a generation', Alex Salmond did not, in my opinion, have the authority to commit Scotland to this. He had, at the time, the authority to commit the SNP political party to this, but not the people of Scotland. I can't mind the exact wording, but no parliament is allowed to tie the hands of future parliaments and I would expect that political parties adopt a similar principle that the party cannot bind the hands of what the party decides in future.

It is thus, in my opinion, in the hands of the voters of Scotland to decide, when a post Alex Salmond SNP party decided to ignore Alex Salmond's 'once in a generation' soundbite, whether or not to vote for the SNP.

It really annoys me that democracy is somehow seen as 'owned' by political parties (not saying you believe this, it's a generic observation). Democracy lies with us the people - it is up to us to decide when the next referendum is (if ever) with our authority exercised through the ballot box. If we want to ignore what Alex Salmond said, then we can.

It's not really got a lot to do with what Alex Salmond or the Scottish Parliament think. Once-in-a-generation was part of the rationale for Westminster agreeing to the referendum, and it's entirely reasonable therefore for it to figure in their decision about whether there's another referendum now.

 

[cb a1]

It's not really got a lot to do with what Alex Salmond or the Scottish Parliament think. Once-in-a-generation was part of the rationale for Westminster agreeing to the referendum, and it's entirely reasonable therefore for it to figure in their decision about whether there's another referendum now.

Westminster knows fine well that Alex Salmond could not bind a future Scottish Parliament to 'once in a generation'. If that influenced their decision to agree that is dangerously incompetent.

 

[takno]

Westminster knows fine well that Alex Salmond could not bind a future Scottish Parliament to 'once in a generation'. If that influenced their decision to agree that is dangerously incompetent.

It's important to reiterate that it's absolutely within reserved powers whether a referendum happens or not. The thing that's binding the hands of the Scottish Parliament is that they don't have the right to call one without Westminster choosing to give it to them. Westminster's hands aren't legally tied on the matter, but from their point of view they've given what they said they'd give in 2014, and it's quite reasonable for them to dismiss any further demands without much consideration for the next 10 years or so.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It's important to reiterate that it's absolutely within reserved powers whether a referendum happens or not. The thing that's binding the hands of the Scottish Parliament is that they don't have the right to call one without Westminster choosing to give it to them. Westminster's hands aren't legally tied on the matter, but from their point of view they've given what they said they'd give in 2014, and it's quite reasonable for them to dismiss any further demands without much consideration for the next 10 years or so.

And this is the entire problem with the current devolution settlement. Essentially, the various devolved legislatures are entirely at the mercy of the English, whereas it should really be the situation that if three out of the four home nations agree on something, then it can be done.

The current situation where the English can block Scotland (and Wales/NI) is really quite unacceptable. This is why federalism and devo max is badly needed in the short term, simply to reduce the democractic deficit.

 

[cb a1]

It's important to reiterate that it's absolutely within reserved powers whether a referendum happens or not. The thing that's binding the hands of the Scottish Parliament is that they don't have the right to call one without Westminster choosing to give it to them. Westminster's hands aren't legally tied on the matter, but from their point of view they've given what they said they'd give in 2014, and it's quite reasonable for them to dismiss any further demands without much consideration for the next 10 years or so.

No Parliament's hands are tied. As long as the UK demos keeps on voting in a government which refuses a 2nd referendum then there will not be a referendum. The once in a lifetime is irrelevant. Unless something changes, the UK government can legitimately never allow a 2nd referendum.
This is my point. The power for this lies with the people, neither a political party nor a Parliament.

 

[Wynd]

Once in a generation is as relevant as "vote no to stay in the EU" which was a core tenet of the Better Together campaign. This is one of the primary reasons this debate rumbles on.

There is nothing, not one single legally binding thing about either statement. They are political rhetoric and nothing more. Don't take my word for it, read the Edinburgh Agreement, yourselves.

Anyone complaining about spending low millions on a series of papers needs to get real about wasted money.

PPE Scandal? National debt interest payments now toping £100 BILLION! £350B of wasted oil wealth. The list goes on.

Could Scotland perform better economically? At the moment the answer is almost an unequivocal yes given the shambles that is the UK government.
The state that practically invented the modern world has more world class universities per head of population than almost anywhere else on earth.

The current chancellor used to sell marmalade! You could hardly find someone less qualified.

Remember Gideon Osborne telling us Austerity would fix the roof whilst the sun was shining.

Its been a decade, why are UK finances in such a parlous state?

Support for independence appress to remain steady, regardless of the fortunes of the SNP, but the next couple of elections will prove interesting. Whitehall is in a holding pattern, and they know they cannot deny mandates in perpetuity. Even bright Unionists know this.

 

[Noddy]

Anyone complaining about spending low millions on a series of papers needs to get real about wasted money.

PPE Scandal? National debt interest payments now toping £100 BILLION! £350B of wasted oil wealth. The list goes on.

Just because other polititions have wasted money shouldn’t and doesn’t mean the current SNP/Scottish government are immune from criticism. And willy waving about it…well we all know about that. And it certainly achieves nothing in terms of moving the discussion forward.

 

[Purple Train]

Once in a generation is as relevant as "vote no to stay in the EU" which was a core tenet of the Better Together campaign. This is one of the primary reasons this debate rumbles on.

There is nothing, not one single legally binding thing about either statement. They are political rhetoric and nothing more. Don't take my word for it, read the Edinburgh Agreement, yourselves.

The trouble with political rhetoric is that it dictates an awful lot of the democratic process. It may not be legally binding, but then neither was the slogan on the Brexit bus, nor the Lib Dems' tuition fees pledge, nor was "get Brexit done". But they all hold enough sway over voters to influence how they vote, and consequently should be respected.

I don't know how much more simply I can put it.

Anyone complaining about spending low millions on a series of papers needs to get real about wasted money.

PPE Scandal? National debt interest payments now toping £100 BILLION! £350B of wasted oil wealth. The list goes on.

SNP financial scandal? I wouldn't trust them to run a greasy spoon let alone a country.

It may also help your point if you didn't write like a Donald Trump tweet loosely translated into English.

Could Scotland perform better economically? At the moment the answer is almost an unequivocal yes given the shambles that is the UK government.
The state that practically invented the modern world has more world class universities per head of population than almost anywhere else on earth.

First point, fair. Unfortunately I can't see the second point you're making, if there is one.

The current chancellor used to sell marmalade! You could hardly find someone less qualified.

Remember Gideon Osborne telling us Austerity would fix the roof whilst the sun was shining.

Its been a decade, why are UK finances in such a parlous state?

Last two points, fair. I'm not sure why selling marmalade makes the Chancellor particularly incompetent, but no doubt you can explain further.

Support for independence appress to remain steady, regardless of the fortunes of the SNP, but the next couple of elections will prove interesting. Whitehall is in a holding pattern, and they know they cannot deny mandates in perpetuity. Even bright Unionists know this.

Indeed they can't. But neither do the SNP have the right to demand another referendum until they get what they want. Soundbite or not, politicians of all colours need to be held to account for what they say, right? If so, why should the SNP have the right to say "we didn't mean it" when what they said doesn't fit their agenda? Opinions change, fine. But in such a history-defining issue as this, nine years is the blink of an eye, in my opinion.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But neither do the SNP have the right to demand another referendum until they get what they want

Is there a reason why you feel self determination is only important every now and again rather than something that a people (in this case the Scottish people) should have a constant say over?

 

[duncanp]

I remember Alex Salmond saying "..the dream will never die..." the day after the 2014 referendum, and a campaign for IndyRef 2 starting almost immediately afterwards.

So it is quite clear to me that there are some people who were never going to accept the 2014 result, and this was whilst the coalition government was still in office, and before any notion of a Brexit referendum could even be contemplated.

Indeed it could even be argued that the 2014 Scottish referendum lead to the 2016 Brexit referendum, because if Scotland has the right to have a vote on whether to remain part of the UK or not, surely the UK as a whole has a similar right to determine whether to remain part of the EU or not.

Looking at opinion polls on Socttish independence over the past 12 months (from the Wikipedia article) public opinion in Scotland appears to be evenly split, with an average of 47% against independence, 45% in favour of independence, and 8% undecided.

So it is far from certain that Scotland would vote for independence if a referendum were held in the near future, and if a second referendum were to result in another vote against independence, it would kill off the issue for good, just as it did in Quebec.

 

[Falcon1200]

This is one of the primary reasons this debate rumbles on.

No, the only reason this debate rumbles on is because the Nationalists will simply not accept that having been (well) beaten in 2014, and despite all the advantages given to them since then with a consummate politician in Nicola Sturgeon, Brexit, BoJo, Fizzy Lizzy etc, their failure to win more than 50% of the vote in elections (which are not even an independence referendum anyway) shows that Scotland simply does not want to abandon the UK.

Anyone complaining about spending low millions on a series of papers needs to get real about wasted money.

Of course, because money is being wasted elsewhere its OK for the Scottish Government to fritter away 'low millions' (which is still a lot of cash).

Its been a decade, why are UK finances in such a parlous state?

Um..... Covid?

self determination is only important every now and again rather than something that a people (in this case the Scottish people) should have a constant say over?

What does having a constant say over self determination mean? A referendum every decade, year, month?

 

[Noddy]

Looking at opinion polls on Scottish independence over the past 12 months (from the Wikipedia article) public opinion in Scotland appears to be evenly split, with an average of 47% against independence, 45% in favour of independence, and 8% undecided.

Not only that, if you study them in detail there have been 30 polls this year of which 6 have produced a Yes lead. However, all but one of these have been by a new polling firm called Find Out Now which is actually a free to play lottery company called Pick My Postcode (they sell ads and surveys to self selecting players for potential prizes). It doesn’t take a genius to work out the potential flaws in their methodology.