Scottish independence referendum thread

[Milltown Row2]

Times frames?

5-10 years for referendum?
10-20
30-60?

[HiMucker]

I think a, Scottish referendum would have to be won 50+1% and accepted before we got any leeway here. After all brexit fucked us all over on a 51.89 to 48.11% basis.

" But Northern Ireland voted to stay" is the mantra coming from the same people saying 50 plus 1 is good enough in future ref

You would need to be an idiot not to grasp the difference in the two situations.

You'd need to be an idiot not to recognise that 51% will cause issues also though. Im not saying I agree it should be different but it will not be easy managed at all.

I am not saying you are an idiot or anything

Obviously you would want the vote to be as high as possible, and of course there would be some issues. But  that still doesn't warrant moving the goal posts. That's the only point I'm making.

[keep her low this half]

Times frames?

5-10 years for referendum?
10-20
30-60?

I think there will be a vote on Irish reunification before 2030, it may not be won but there will be a vote. SF in government in Dublin pushing the agenda will make a big difference. Current Irish government have made zero preparations because "the time is not right". The time will never be right for FF/FG because they do not want to risk losing power which is much more important to them than northern nationalists and distortion of trade and living standards on this Island.

[imtommygunn]

I am not as sure tbh. I would say longer. What if sf get into government and make a balls of it? I think they would need to get the 26 county house in order first.

[seafoid]

Times frames?

5-10 years for referendum?
10-20
30-60?

I think there will be a vote on Irish reunification before 2030, it may not be won but there will be a vote. SF in government in Dublin pushing the agenda will make a big difference. Current Irish government have made zero preparations because "the time is not right". The time will never be right for FF/FG because they do not want to risk losing power which is much more important to them than northern nationalists and distortion of trade and living standards on this Island.

A lost vote is pointless.
There is a strong economic case for a United Ireland that would trump the Irish Independent analysis but it needs to be articulated and supported.

[AustinPowers]

I don't remember hearing  anything about a 50% +1  when the sectarian statelet  was created .

You wouldn't have - it was 70 30 or there abouts

Maybe so , but my point was That there was no referendum.  The statelet was foisted upon northern nationalists . 

Anyway ., NI was created on a sectarian headcount.  So if there's a 50+1 yes vote for a UI , then that should  be enough. As that would  effectively mean the statelet no longer has a unionist majority and therefore  should cease to exist

Maybe there should be transition period with a referendum at the end.
The birth of NI was shameful. So was a lot of what followed.

There will be a transition period after a referendum not before. There should however be a preparation period for a referendum, 2- 3 years to thrash out the details, pension, healthcare etc. Post referendum it will take sometime to run down and disentangle the British state and integrate the Irish systems, welfare, healthcare etc, it could take 5 years post referendum but that would have to be a period of joint authority with it working towards integration with the republic.

That's all  well and good , but  the British government firstly have to agree to having a  referendum, and feck knows  how long that could take  .

And even  if they did agree to a referendum,  no doubt they'd  stir the shit like they did with the Scots,  regarding healthcare,  pensions etc .  Scaring them into  remaining

[armaghniac]

I don't remember hearing  anything about a 50% +1  when the sectarian statelet  was created .

You wouldn't have - it was 70 30 or there abouts

Maybe so , but my point was That there was no referendum.  The statelet was foisted upon northern nationalists . 

Anyway ., NI was created on a sectarian headcount.  So if there's a 50+1 yes vote for a UI , then that should  be enough. As that would  effectively mean the statelet no longer has a unionist majority and therefore  should cease to exist

Maybe there should be transition period with a referendum at the end.
The birth of NI was shameful. So was a lot of what followed.

There will be a transition period after a referendum not before. There should however be a preparation period for a referendum, 2- 3 years to thrash out the details, pension, healthcare etc. Post referendum it will take sometime to run down and disentangle the British state and integrate the Irish systems, welfare, healthcare etc, it could take 5 years post referendum but that would have to be a period of joint authority with it working towards integration with the republic.

That's all  well and good , but  the British government firstly have to agree to having a  referendum, and feck knows  how long that could take  .

And even  if they did agree to a referendum,  no doubt they'd  stir the shit like they did with the Scots,  regarding healthcare,  pensions etc .  Scaring them into  remaining

The Scottish thing is a major problem for us. London does want to keep Scotland, but doesn't much care about NI. If the NI referendum was entirely stand alone then they might not bother stirring shit, as there is no advantage in doing so. But there is a danger of them stirring shit in relation to financial arrangements etc in order to prevent any suggest that the same terms apply to Scotland. A bit of careful thought is needed for a formula that favours NI and screws Scotland.

[seafoid]

I don't remember hearing  anything about a 50% +1  when the sectarian statelet  was created .

You wouldn't have - it was 70 30 or there abouts

Maybe so , but my point was That there was no referendum.  The statelet was foisted upon northern nationalists . 

Anyway ., NI was created on a sectarian headcount.  So if there's a 50+1 yes vote for a UI , then that should  be enough. As that would  effectively mean the statelet no longer has a unionist majority and therefore  should cease to exist

Maybe there should be transition period with a referendum at the end.
The birth of NI was shameful. So was a lot of what followed.

There will be a transition period after a referendum not before. There should however be a preparation period for a referendum, 2- 3 years to thrash out the details, pension, healthcare etc. Post referendum it will take sometime to run down and disentangle the British state and integrate the Irish systems, welfare, healthcare etc, it could take 5 years post referendum but that would have to be a period of joint authority with it working towards integration with the republic.

That's all  well and good , but  the British government firstly have to agree to having a  referendum, and feck knows  how long that could take  .

And even  if they did agree to a referendum,  no doubt they'd  stir the shit like they did with the Scots,  regarding healthcare,  pensions etc .  Scaring them into  remaining

The Scottish thing is a major problem for us. London does want to keep Scotland, but doesn't much care about NI. If the NI referendum was entirely stand alone then they might not bother stirring shit, as there is no advantage in doing so. But there is a danger of them stirring shit in relation to financial arrangements etc in order to prevent any suggest that the same terms apply to Scotland. A bit of careful thought is needed for a formula that favours NI and screws Scotland.

Scotland is similar to NI in that support for independence is close to 50% and that isn't enough for a definitive break. The SNP like SF need too bring people onside.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

I think a, Scottish referendum would have to be won 50+1% and accepted before we got any leeway here. After all brexit fucked us all over on a 51.89 to 48.11% basis.

" But Northern Ireland voted to stay" is the mantra coming from the same people saying 50 plus 1 is good enough in future ref

You would need to be an idiot not to grasp the difference in the two situations.

You'd need to be an idiot not to recognise that 51% will cause issues also though. Im not saying I agree it should be different but it will not be easy managed at all.

I am not saying you are an idiot or anything

Obviously you would want the vote to be as high as possible, and of course there would be some issues. But  that still doesn't warrant moving the goal posts. That's the only point I'm making.

Fair enough

[armaghniac]

Scotland is similar to NI in that support for independence is close to 50% and that isn't enough for a definitive break. The SNP like SF need too bring people onside.

Do Scottish people not generally accept that if a majority of Scots want independence then it should have it?

[seafoid]

I don't remember hearing  anything about a 50% +1  when the sectarian statelet  was created .

You wouldn't have - it was 70 30 or there abouts

Maybe so , but my point was That there was no referendum.  The statelet was foisted upon northern nationalists . 

Anyway ., NI was created on a sectarian headcount.  So if there's a 50+1 yes vote for a UI , then that should  be enough. As that would  effectively mean the statelet no longer has a unionist majority and therefore  should cease to exist

Maybe there should be transition period with a referendum at the end.
The birth of NI was shameful. So was a lot of what followed.

There will be a transition period after a referendum not before. There should however be a preparation period for a referendum, 2- 3 years to thrash out the details, pension, healthcare etc. Post referendum it will take sometime to run down and disentangle the British state and integrate the Irish systems, welfare, healthcare etc, it could take 5 years post referendum but that would have to be a period of joint authority with it working towards integration with the republic.

That's all  well and good , but  the British government firstly have to agree to having a  referendum, and feck knows  how long that could take  .

And even  if they did agree to a referendum,  no doubt they'd  stir the shit like they did with the Scots,  regarding healthcare,  pensions etc .  Scaring them into  remaining

If the Brits could stop paying the subvention and could be assured that the North would be stable they would probably gladly hand it over.
Part of the reason the North is as it is now is because the Brits didn't invest in it for decades. Funding the RUC and social welfare do not count.

[imtommygunn]

I don't think the handing it over thing is true at all. They are destabilising things here and IMO intentionally to shit stir with the EU.

The brits don't invest in the north of England so the north of Ireland is unlikely to get much investment. A lot of peace funds etc have kept it afloat.

[Main Street]

Scotland is similar to NI in that support for independence is close to 50% and that isn't enough for a definitive break. The SNP like SF need too bring people onside.

Do Scottish people not generally accept that if a majority of Scots want independence then it should have it?

The ground rules for the last one was a "simple majority" in favor carries the referendum.
A simple majority is defined as 50% plus one vote.
Changing that criteria to favor unionists would surely boost the ranks of  "Rebellious Scots".

[Rossfan]

The Scottish Government and Parliament firmly out in its "place" by the "UK Supreme Court".
Time they did an Ireland 1919 and withdraw from Westminster?

[AustinPowers]

Westminster will keep blocking any referendum  and every time Sturgeon talks about it , they'll say "oh here we go again "... the same  happens here when SF talk of a referendum.

I ALways thought the text in the GFA about a referendum was nonsense,  for the same reason above.

No doubt the Tories will be there for another  year or two , so their antics will no increase the  support for referenda in both places. But  Westminster will continue to dig in their heels about granting one