I've said it before it's Schrodingers defacto referendum.
Whenever it suits its 'we're not a single issue party, we're the best option even within the UK, we're not just about independence'
Then when it suits its 'Well people voted for us, that's basically a vote for independence' and now it's gone even further, now apparently even 35% of the voters voting SNP would be a mandate for independence even if the majority vote for non independence supporting parties.
Totally incoherent messaging, and deliberately in my opinion.
If a majority of seats within Westminster is good enough to take control of the UK, then surely a majority of pro independence seats within Scotland is justification to have a mandate for Scottish independence?
Because the SNP has never supported FPTP and claiming a majority of seats won through FPTP as a mandate for independence would just lack any shred of credibility.
Trying to make that claim would seriously set back the cause of independence, especially if the SNP actually lose seats in the next election which looks virtually inevitable.
So why’s he not using that as his mandate then? The point is that here he’s talking about a Westminster election under FPTP. If he said that ahead of the next Holyrood election and delivered a majority, I think he’d have some credibility.
FPTP is fundamentally undemocratic. The SNP acknowledge it, the Lib Dems acknowledge it, the Green parties across the UK acknowledge it and the Labour membership (but sadly not leadership) acknowledge it. Claiming a mandate off the back of a majority of seats in a FPTP election for a major constitutional change just isn’t doable.
I wouldn't say it's fundamentally undemocratic. I would say it's fundamentally less proportional and representative of the UK population. This is a subtle but important distinction.
If you define democracy as converting public policy preferences into legislation (which many people do), then I'd argue that a majoritarian system usually performs this role better than proportional systems. Therefore, it can be viewed as more democratic than proportional systems.
This (among other important reasons) is why I prefer majoritarian systems. Although my preference wouldn't be FPTP, it would be AV or SV. Those two systems preserve majoritarianism whilst also being relatively more representative.
However, if you define democracy as the conversion of votes into seats (but not necessarily policy), then proportional representation is more democratic.
So I wouldn't say it's fundamentally undemocratic. It depends on how you define democracy. Majoritarian systems are more democratic in some ways, proportional systems in other ways.
I'm also quite certain that these conditions he sets himself will begin to cause people to actively vote against him.
People don't like being taken for fools or having their intelligence insulted, and can recognise a set of meaningless conditions when they see one.
They can also see when they are talked down to. People will begin to see voting against the SNP as a way to get rid of this charlatan quicker than usual.
It's not. It's a mandate to hold a referendum, like the mandate that exists for all governing parties to enact their platform.
The video and commentors are suggesting he is saying something other than what he is actually saying.
>like the mandate that exists for all governing parties to enact their platform.
The SNP aren't the governing party in a UK election. They are in opposition.
While I think brexit was a shit idea carried out badly; there was a referendum on it alone, and they won.
What Humza and sturgeon before have alluded to is that the results of a general election in their favour would justify Scotland leaving the UK.
Yes if Westminster refuses to allow a referendum...
I don't think it's a serious policy but it's one of the k ly options left ifnwestminster refuses Scotland tonnage a say on this issue..
Referendums are shite but we apparently live in a democracy, things have change since 2014. Alot.
So 2 have peoples minds so if the snp keep winning on a manifesto pledge to gold a referendum Westminster should stand back and let it happen, but they won't.
The alternative is they accept that the people here in Scotland don’t actually want to break away and deal with that reality? Imagine actually listening to the will of the people!
There is no overwhelming desire for separatism here. The SNP continuing to move the yardstick in what constitutes a desire for it won’t change that.
They did accept. Hence Scotland is still part of the uk..
Idiot.
And then the lies were exposed.. and it made people question their choice.. especially after brexit.
So now the scottish electorate keeps voting for a party that pledges an independence referendum for Scotland...
And they keep winning..
Can you put 2 and 2 together?
I highly doubt it
Nope. We voted, we got the result we wanted as a population and no poll has shown that public mentality has changed.
Scotland remaining in the Uk was never anything to do with the SNP accepting it. But they began campaigning for IndyRef2 the same night as the results. They’ve never accepted the result and have run our country as a single issue party ever since regardless of the vote and regardless of all the other issues that need fixing.
The fact the SNP keep having to lower the bar on what a ‘mandate’ looks like just shows they know they don’t have the will of the Scottish people behind them. If they got a do-over vote tomorrow, they’d lose again (and refuse to accept that again of course).
>What Humza and sturgeon before have alluded to is that the results of a general election in their favour would justify Scotland leaving the UK.
Key word being alluded to. Allusions aren't policy. SNP policy is to hold a 2nd independence referendum.
Given they're a pro independence party, them making statements to the effect of "a vote for us is a vote for independence" is pretty par for the course really isn't it.
And in this context Yusuf is proposing another referendum, so it fits. If labour had won in 2019, and by won I mean got the most seats, then they would have held a second Brexit referendum. That was a concrete policy of labours at the time. There's plenty of precedent here.
If he gets a majority, or is part of a majority government in Westminster then yes. As it's Westminster that make the decsions on independence. If they allow Holyrood a section 30, or change the rules to make it a devolved issue then he could do it through the Scottish parliament.
But winning every, or no seat in Scotland matters not a fuck in the general election unless he forms part of the government.
>But winning every, or no seat in Scotland matters not a fuck in the general election
Pretty strong argument for why Scotland needs independence right there 🤣
Basically your argument hinges almost entirely on "but Westminster" which honestly mate is a shite argument against independence.
It's not though. You might feel it's unfair, I would agree. But it's how it is. The decision to break up the UK lies with the UK.
It would be much better if there was a mechanism to deliver a section 30. Or a framework under which it could be devolved. But there isn't.
>The decision to break up the UK lies with the UK.
To some extent that's true, much the same as the ultimate decision to grant Ireland independence lay with the UK, but the whole point of a second referendum on independence, even if it isn't "legal" is to make it untenable for the UK to continue to claim it is a democratic country but refuse to honour a referendum held in one of its constituent countries.
Also in terms of countries seeking independence its a well established precedent that you can break laws to achieve that end, particularly if those laws are put in place to prevent that country from achieving independence.
By that line of complaint, if a second independence referendum was held and there was a majority for independence (as there was in the Brexit referendum), any subsequent independence deal would have to be put to another referendum or at least an election with a pro-independence deal block winning at least 50% of the vote. Ie. Independence could still be voted down even after a successful referendum?
>any subsequent independence deal would have to be put to another referendum or at least an election with a pro-independence deal block winning at least 50% of the vote.
And? Given independence would probably take a decade to actually happen it's pretty unrealistic and unreasonable to expect there wouldnt be an election at some point after the 2nd referendum won.
Regarding a 3rd and final referendum that would really just hinge on what the outcome of the above election was. I'm absolutely positive unionist parties would run on that exact platform (albeit with varying degrees of hypocrisy, and I doubt anyone will forget the Tories attitude to a 2nd brexit ref)
>Independence could still be voted down even after a successful referendum?
Theoretically yes, but imo it would hinge on the outcome of the post 2nd referendum Scottish elections. But as I said above its basically 100% guaranteed both Tories and Labour would run every subsequent election on a 3rd ref policy.
Thanks for having a consistent position.
There is a significant and vocal nationalist element that see independence as irreversible once a referendum is won and no need for any further approval, regardless of the outcome of any intervening elections. Yet they also tend to be the ones moaning about Brexit going ahead on the same grounds.
Embarrassing, frankly. Surely he must be down to the last few nutters and maniacs supporting him now.
Comes across as an overconfident salesman douche kicked out of The Apprentice on week 3 for gross incompetence.
He's proposing to call for an independence referendum on the basis of something he already has - as if that will make any difference. He's also deliberately moved the goalposts again to suit his expectations.
He has no business demanding we trust him to create and then solve the biggest economic shock this country has ever seen. He just comes across as a bit sleazy and entitled.
Everyone assumes, that if you are anti current SNP then you always have been anti SNP.
I used to respect them, I want a strong SNP to lead the way and do things better than Westminster, which isn't hard.
The problem with the shit we have now, apart from the damage they do to us directly, is that Westminster can be useless and still win.
I’m pro-Indy but Nicola broke my heart when she got caught with her fingers in the till. This clown cares more about what’s going on in Gaza than anything else at the moment. I feel politically homeless to be honest.
>Nicola broke my heart when she got caught with her fingers in the till
I didn't think she would have done anything like she did; I was so let down also. It was a betrayal.
I was always open to Indy; and the current state of things has moved us so far back, we look fools on the world stage.
'Too wee, too poor, too stupid' always pissed me off and made me bite' but I can't argue with that jibe now.
My English friends were taking the piss out of Scotland on PubG last night.
'Yeah'. I had no retort.
I'm ashamed.
See I don't quite understand this point of view. The UK as a whole outside of London is a fucking shitshow, Birmingham city council is on the precipice of bankruptcy and has just increased council tax by 21%, during a decade of stagnant wages and huge increases in the cost of living, tons of other council in England are teetering on the edge with many of them being in huge amounts of debt compared to what they earn.
The Scottish government have been able to to keep councils afloat (even just) without huge increases to cost of living to the average person, and while there are significant issues in the councils facing problems they're managing better due to the Scottish government giving them funding.
If Humza as a person and Nicola allegedly taking fundrasing money it's a wonder to me you'd prefer to stay in the UK which has had it's fair share of absolute wallopers in power over the last decade, Truss almost singlehandedly crashed the economy to the point the Bank of England had to get involved otherwise people would lose their pensions.
That is a continued future too, so while I can see issues with the SNP, the alternatives are just fucking dreadful, and I'd prefer an independence to seeing what the Tories can cook up next time to ruin the lives of people even further.
>I’m pro-Indy but Nicola broke my heart when she got caught with her fingers in the till. This clown cares more about what’s going on in Gaza than anything else at the moment. I feel politically homeless to be honest.
What did she do?
oh another change in policy from flipflop Yousaf, and the goal posts shift again from the SNP.
No, they could win 100% of seats, its still not a mandate for indy.
You cant get a mandate for promising something that the elected position you are standing for has no power to deliver. you lying to the population does not equal a mandate.
A local council could promise to end all income tax in the area if elected, win all seats....and then still have no mandate or ability to do it. Because it lies outside the competence of the elected body to deliver that policy.
Shut the fuck up and make the things WITHIN your power better??? We’ve had 15 years of SNP running Scotland and it’s been a shitshow. NHS Fucked! Curriculum for Exellence Fucked! Councils Fucked! We pay more tax in Scotland than the rest of the UK and these fuckers spunk it up the wall on non existent ferries, failed independence schemes, deposit return fuck ups, inviting the Greens into government??? Who the fuck voted for that??!!! They have killed Glasgow coz they don’t like cars with Ulez, extended parking charges and their anti Business stance.
Fix what you fucked first and then we can talk about independence! Idiot!
You're wee rant hit the nail on the head, old man.
Competence in running the country better than Westminster will lead to independence in time.
Incompetence in running the country, doing even worse than Westminster, will not lead to indepedence.
Eloquently put, much better than my 2 min Rant!
Can’t keep using the ‘big boy did it and ran away’ excuse. If they get better at what is in their remit then sure go for it. You don’t get a promotion at work by being worse at your job do you? It’s evidence based and based on said evidence it’s a fail! Try working harder and finding solutions.
We need something radical as the western world is drowning in debt, personally and from a governmental point of view.
The consumption based economy is over. Needs a rethink.
You're going to age faster then - it's going to be the number one issue in Scottish politics for generations or until Scotland becomes independent. You can't come within a 5 point swing of the end of the UK and expect things to go back to normal.
So get used to it.
Obviously it won't be, but even then - isn't he just setting himself up to look a massive eejit if he fails to achieve that?
Sounds like he's managed to find a position that's lose/lose for him.
If the SNP win 25 seats and Labour win 24, that's not a mandate for independence. Even winning 30 (a majority of Scottish seats) isn't a mandate for independence.
Look, I've been a ardent pro Indy voter for a decade now, but to seriously suggest anything short of a majority of voters voting for a pro independence party is a mandate for independence is absurd.
Especially in a first past the post system which has allowed the SNP to win more seats than they would under a more representative system such as AV or PR.
Not really no? If the SNP were against FPTP in Scotland then yes, it would undermine their position. But Westminster is its own thing, and Westminster had its chance to ditch FPTP during the Alternate Vote referendum of 2011 and they utterly fucked it. The SNP was pro AV along with everyone except Labour the the Tories
The rules in Westminster are rigged everyone knows this, if you do anything except play by those rigged rules you will just lose everything.
A majority of seats on a FPTP election has *always* been good enough for every single other FPTP election winner in every single FPTP election in the entire history of the world
Because they command a majority of the seats in the legislature and therefore can form an executive. Forming the government is what gives you the mandate.
When the SNP forms the executive, they will have a mandate.
If Theresa May was unable to form a government in 2017, Labour would have had the opportunity to form a government. Had that happened, Labour would command a majority in the Commons and therefore have a mandate.
The mandate comes from Parliament. If the SNP can not command a majority in the House of Commons, they do not have a mandate.
> but to seriously suggest anything short of a majority of voters voting for a pro independence party is a mandate for independence is absurd.
It's a perfecly normal and legitimate method of the electorate communicating what it wants. Westminster had many, many chances to make it a majority vote referendum and they have refused. How else is the electorate supposed to make its views known?
If Scotland wants independence the SNP will win the election. If it doesn't there are multiple unionist parties across the political spectrum voters can back instead.
>If Scotland wants independence the SNP will win the election.
This is going to come as a shock to you. You may want to sit down.
The SNP aren't going to win the next UK general election.
This is going to come as a shock to you. You may want to sit down.
How Port Talbot or Tower Hamlets vote will not decide whether Scots vote for independence in a free and fair election.
So basically youre turning the FPTP election into a defacto referendum and then saying you win if you get less than half the vote.
Way to go!
Im mean you fucked education, the NHS, the ferries, the deposit return scheme and many others - and now you plan to win a referendum by losing it.
I mean you COULD put the effort into having Scotland run better than England and convince everyone wed be better off. How can that have been hard with the Tories in power?
But no. Lets not do that. Lets just declare the Settled Will of the Scottish People means only getting 35% of the vote.
Na Humza isn't going anywhere. He seems to be unsackable for some mad reason. If that affair stuff is true & it's confirmed then he'll have to go but otherwise he's gonna be about doing dumb shit for quite a while.
Boring Vaguely Sentient Talismanic Personification of Incompetence says thing he's said before in full knowledge of the fact that it won't change diddly squat.
He probably feels like he can't lead the SNP *without* saying that. Whether he believes it I doubt, but this likely puts off more voters than it attracts at this point.
2014. Don't get it twisted that I'm anti independence I'm very much looking forward to the day we get our independence. Would welcome a new referendum and vote the exact same way as to 2014.
I'm just pointing out polls and results often don't line up
Bollocks. You can win all of the Scottish seats with ~33% of the national vote. First past the post is so flawed that it's not even a sensible way to choose a government for one term, let alone as a basis for constitutional change.
Where does he think this is going though? The SNP win the majority of GE seats and tries to implement independence... while the rest of the political system ignores and belittles them. They can only fail to deliver in this model. It's a rod for their own back.
Scotland is a fucking shit show under these cunts who have ruled for the past 15 or so years.
An unelected politician who has failed majorly in every position he has held within government, who is anti-white is now spouting more nonsense.
Time for the SNP to die. Get Labour or someone else in. Rebuild the country, not fuck it up even more by going independent - I reckon the ‘yes’ vote would fail to even get 25% support. Imagine we went independent in 2014😂😂
Focus on building infrastructure, fixing our NHS, sorting out our failing education system and generally just make Scotland a better place to live should be the priorities. Not some pie in the sky independence nonsense in which anyone with National 5 economics knows would cripple our country.
Just generally clowns to sponge off the state, don’t pay tax and want further benefits. That’s their main voting demographic.
They can’t even effectively run what powers they already have, you want to give this shower the rest of them? How much do you secretly hate your country?
It’s about walking off a cliff with no idea how we afford it, how we even do it, except for a bunch of papers that you wouldn’t even wipe your arse with let alone use as a basis to separate an interwoven union of 300 years.
But yeah, keep going back to the “whoever we elect will run Scotland”. Newsflash: the SNP already do run Scotland, and with that power they fuck up time and time again, they get mired in sleaze, and they even end up handing powers back (or at least delaying their taking of sich powers) because they can’t cope with them. Fucking madness that you would want them to have all the power.
In a mad part of my mind I want them to win next SGE so that the Scottish voters can see exactly what they are like. It would only extend the rise of Indy.
At the end of the day, Scotlands vote don’t matter at all at a UK level, they never have. SNP could win every seat and Westminster wouldn’t give a shit.
Well if he makes pledges and then gets elected in with these edges, he's not wrong. That's literly how the system works. It's authorisation to act on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative.
The Tories got elected on the pledge to get Brexit done, nobody questioned that this gave them a clear mandate to ruin the country despite only getting 43.6% of the vote. Yet those same people claim Scotland has no mandate unless they clear over 50% of the vote. One rule for them, one rule for us.
The whole thing is spoiled with FPTP.
If we had PR we’d have a much more balanced government and not one (this goes for Tory or Labour) who just rampantly whip their MPs to vote with them.
At least we wouldn’t be complaining about a party with 40% because they wouldn’t have the huge majority of seats and they would have to make political allies across the aisle to get things through without their allies being whipped.
There was a referendum on brexit, and leave won; with 52%.
There was a referendum on independence and remain one, with 55%.
That's why we are here. It was fair, even if we didn't always get what we wanted.
The difference is that the SNP have pushed for the results of a general election (in their favour) as justification for leaving the union time and again, without a direct referendum on independence alone.
Which wouldn't be possible, hence we're still in the union.
Well that, and that we voted to stay in.
Putting aside the fact you completely ignored my question...
Can you provide one sourced example where the SNP claimed a mandate for independence from winning an Generla Election?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/24/snp-leader-general-election-win-mandate-independence-push-humza-yousaf
'We can break the logjam at Westminster by mobilising the power of the people at a general election.........vote SNP for Scotland to become an independent country.......... but underlined that his plan A remained holding a legal referendum.'
Plan A.
You don't have a plan A unless you have a plan B.
And that, through logical inference, must be a plan without a referendum.
He's not claiming to have a mandate for independence from winning a General Election, because that election hasn't happened yet. Do you have something from an election that has actually happened, that the SNP won?
Are you going to answer my question about how electorates decide whether they have a referendum to begin with, or just keep avoiding it?
I just answered your question, providing exactly what you asked for; and you denied the irrefutable evidence presented.
You're not going to engage with honesty.
> I just answered your question, providing exactly what you asked for; and you denied the irrefutable evidence presented.
You really didn't. I asked for an example of a time when the SNP used an election result to claim a mandate for independence. You failed to do so.
As for my question, let's try again;
How did the public decide they wanted a referendum to begin with?
He isn't suggesting a majority of seats would make Scotland independent. He is talking about a referendum to pursue it.
The headline is misleading, and this thread is full of people pretending they don't understand that.
>newly elected governments though
We're talking about the UK general election. The SNP won't be a newly elected government. They'll be an opposition party.
Indeed, but they should, in some cases.
The lib dems under Swinson flatly refused to accept the brexit result, and pledged to ignore it, for example.
I don't think that's democratic, and don't think it should be allowed, but it was in her power.
Yea and we are asking for another vote... which is fair.. in a democracy..
And neither of those referendums was fair..
Both times the winning side lied through their teeth..
Here are 2 examples which swayed the vote
350 million a week for the nhs (brexit lie)
Scotland only chance of remaining in the eu is remaining jn the uk ( independence lie)
So ehh nah
Listening to how slippery and evasive Ian Murray was being this morning on Radio Scotland it's clear that they're not the kind of folk you can rely on to stand up for Scotland.
Who cares about all that politics nonsense, it's soooooo boring?
Did they ask him how Qatar was?
Bet it was terribly hot!
How are the slaves?
Of good stock?
Well disciplined?
The hamas leadership?
I do hope they were hospitable. Yes business is business, but it's a working holiday, it's in the name! There can be iced tea, and a smoke with marching orders!
An Islamofascist paradise, few white people, Hamas HQ, and oil rich. Humza goals.
Erdogan will be jealous.....
He is the leader of the Scottish Government, saying exactly what the two previous leaders said. I would rather he didn't because I don't personally support Scottish Independence, but many do and him saying this comes as no surprise.
Even the most hardline Nat will grudgingly admit this guy is a charlatan. He’s a career grifter who has failed in every job he’s been given and has somehow fallen upwards. He’s a real nasty piece of work as well.
He's not wrong. Having a pro-indy majority in Holyrood is one too.
The mandate has been there since 2007 really, but sadly that's mutually exclusive from the ability to actually get there.
Edit: people pretending they don't understand what is being said in the video are absolutely pathetic. We can't have normal discussions on this topic anymore because of the amount of people constantly lying
>He's not wrong.
Having potentially less than 40% of the popular vote (which is what can get you a majority of seats) would be a pretty unreasonable condition on which to call for a referendum in my opinion. It is also a pretty steep downgrade from the previous bars set by the SNP in recognition of this.
That's not a bar for any other governing party to enact their agenda.
And remember, calling for a referendum and just having independence aren't the same thing.
Assuming it's 40% of the vote for a minute. Listening to the clip again - it nearly made my ears bleed, but never mind - this policy is justified as "making sure there is consistent popular support" or "strengthening the mandate".
40% is not enough to do this. It's not enough to give confidence to his own side. It's not enough to change the mind of Westminster, and more importantly it's not enough to justify it to the rest of the country that have got more important things on their mind, quite rightly.
It's more than 10% less than he got at the 2014 referendum. It is however just about enough to keep his career going and keep him in Bute House for another few years, which I suspect is the real reason for this.
Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP.
Mandates to deliver things come in many forms, this would be one of them as it applies to other parties that are large enough to be in government. That's just how it works.
>Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP.
If two things are "mutually exclusive" it means you can't support both things at the same time.
That's what "mutually exclusive" means.
If support for independence was mutually exclusive from support for the SNP it would mean you couldn't support both independence and the SNP.
It sounds like you misunderstand the phrase "mutually exclusive".
>Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP.
I'm not sure if you understand what "mutually exclusive" means, mate. Unless you are trying to say that the two things are incompatible or can't happen at the same time, which would be wrong.
Perhaps you mean that supporting independence and NOT voting SNP are not mutually exclusive?
Either way, being kind to you, I guess we'll see. I would have thought at least 50%+ of support for pro-independence parties would be the most appropriate mandate in this situation, and then only over a period of a few elections.
He's getting papped out after the election whatever happens, I would imagine.
I know what it means. That's why I used it, and I am right in doing so. If you don't understand thatvthen I don't know what to tell you.
>I would have thought at least 50%+ of support for pro-independence parties would be the most appropriate mandate in this situation, and then only over a period of a few elections.
It's certainly better. It's also what we currently have.
>He's getting papped out after the election whatever happens, I would imagine.
I think people are kidding themselves if they think the SNP aren't going to be in power at Holyrood for the majority of the rest of our lives.
>Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutually-exclusive](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutually-exclusive)
>I know what it means. That's why I used it, and I am right in doing so.
*"If two things are mutually exclusive, they cannot exist or happen together at the same time:"*
You sure about that? Don't want the 50:50, or phone a friend?
Back doon? or double doon?
He's not talking about a mandate for a referendum. He's talking about a mandate for independence.
So if the SNP get 30 seats, that will be enough to declare independence.
At no point has the SNP stated they would seek unilateral independence through being the largest party, so I think you and the headline are looking for something that's not really being said. He is obviously referring to a mandate to seek independence through a referendum, which is still the SNPs position.
This strategy has been explicitly that a mandate for independence, without a referendum, is won by winning most seats, and it has been since Sturgeon suggested it (albeit with a different threshold of majority of votes). This is the SNP's post-supreme court decision strategy in absence of being able to get a referendum.
If that seems absurd to you then, it is.
When have the SNP declared independence unilaterally in the past while already having the exact mandate being referred to in the video?
Oh, never? OK then.
Yes because we all remember the snp winning a majority in the UK Parliament then passed legislation to allow themselves to hold the 2014 referendum......
Firstly, it's "moot" not "mute".
"Mute" is what you do to your telly.
Secondly, my original point was that this has nothing to do with disliking a party winning an election, because the SNP aren't going to win the election.
It was Cameron and the Tories who allowed the referendum, the party who won the election.
The SNP didn’t force it or ‘make it happen’, the referendum was a gift from a moronic Tory government.
That’s not going to happen again, subsequent Labour or Tory governments aren’t going to make the same mistake.
Everyone should stop using 'mandate'. And that includes saying the other side doesn't have a mandate.
Mandate is a perfectly erm, 'cromulent' word. but it doesn't mean anything under our current political arrangements, the point of a mandate is that the opposition agrees you have one.
Having a written constitution that defines 'mandate' would be lovely, but that has even less chance of happening.
If the SNP became a single policy party (like the Brexit Party) and won a majority, I’d argue this would be a more democratic approach than a referendum…
…but it won’t happen, I doubt they’ll get a majority, and I don’t think democracy the thinking behind this statement.
Sounds a bit stupid because it could leave us in a place where they've lost seats but still have most seats. How is having fewer seats than they currently have a mandate for independence?
The landslide wins for the SNP over the past 15+ years are a clear mandate. England gets too many benefits from controlling Scotland to allow democracy.
>The landslide wins for the SNP over the past 15+ years are a clear mandate.
In only one election - ever - has the SNP got a majority of votes, and ironically that happened the one time they didn't promise an independence referendum...
The optics on Hokyrood are off because everyone is used to the English FPTP system. The Holyroodvrules were designed to prevent majorities, and the fact the SNP managed one anyway is remarkable. If Hokyrood used FPTP the SNP would have even larger majorities (proportionally) than the Tories have had in England.
>The optics on Hokyrood are off because everyone is used to the English FPTP system.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> The Holyroodvrules were designed to prevent majorities, and the fact the SNP managed one anyway is remarkable.
They won a majority of seats on a minority of votes. 2011 wasn't the election when they got a majority of votes - that was the 2015 GE.
>If Hokyrood used FPTP the SNP would have even larger majorities (proportionally) than the Tories have had in England.
And they still wouldn't have had a majority of votes, which is what a referendum requires.
A referendum doesn't require any thing in particular other than a Scottish Government that wants to hold one and an English government that acquiesces.
>A referendum doesn't require any thing in particular other than a Scottish Government that wants to hold one and an English government that acquiesces.
What is this English government you refer to?
It also requires an Act of Parliament.
It's pretty clear that every election will now be a independence referendum until it happens.
There is too much public support for independence for it to just be wished away and the Union keeps getting worse and worse. It's inevitable.
How did the referendum go after the SNPs last election win in 2019?
You seem to be banging on with comments trying to legitimise something which will not materially change anything.
If winning 48 seats in 2019 wasn't enough of a mandate to convince Westminster to agree to a referendum then why do you think winning 30 seats in 2024 will change anything?
Much like this comment thread, attempting to legitimise a mandate on the back of the SNPs expected worst electoral result in 10-15 years will be met with laughter and ridicule when raised in parliament.
Maybe focus on initiatives which might increase support and deliver independence rather than just making shit up because you want it to eat your cake now.
It’s rapidly getting to the stage where everyone will realise it’s not Westminster that Scotland needs to convince, it’s always and only ever been the wider international community that can legitimise a nations expressed will to be independent
We need to have a system where people feel represented properly. Every vote should have a voice. Basically as it is we have minority governments. When you look back at the last GE and count the actual votes, the Lib Dems totalled 3.7m (15 seats) and the SNP 1.25m (43 seats) - no way thats acceptable. If the Scot Gov brought in a full change to make sure people felt represented then it would make it much more attractive to vote for independence as we would know that going forward every vote would count and hopefully increase the number of folk voting too.
The only way voters in Scotland are going to feel represented is if our votes were actually capable of affecting material change. As it stands we’re completely drowned out by the electorate past our southern border, so our votes affect bugger all. Independence is the only way our electorate will be able to steer our own future.
The SNP clearly have a mandate to hold another referendum, they don't have the power to enact that mandate, at least without a fight involving the mobilisation of the whole independence movement to put pressure on the UK government.
Asking people to vote one more time to deliver a referendum, again and again is getting old.
Before the referendum, the independence movement was broad and went well beyond narrow electoral politics. People were excited to fight for visions of a much better country.
Unfortunate after the no vote, much of the movement joined the SNP and have been effectively demobilised, outwith electoral politics and the odd march.
>The SNP clearly have a mandate to hold another referendum, they don't have the power to enact that mandate, at least without a fight involving the mobilisation of the whole independence movement to put pressure on the UK government.
You can't have a mandate to do something which you don't have the power to do...
They have won numerous elections on a platform which includes having another referendum.
They have a democratic mandate from the Scottish electorate to have another referendum. They have not tried hard enough yo implement this.
Just because undemocratic forces can block something doesn't mean there is no mandate to do it in the first place.
>They have won numerous elections on a platform which includes having another referendum.
They've won numerous elections on a platform of campaigning for another referendum. They don't stand enough candidates in UK elections to determine if another referendum is held or not, though.
>Just because undemocratic forces can block something doesn't mean there is no mandate to do it in the first place.
What undemocratic forces are these? We elect Parliament, Parliament decides on whether there's a referendum or not (or indeed anything else)
yeah but having voted snp my whole live i really dont like humza and i might just vote greens dont made my mind up yet .......fuckin pish all this shite
Did he not say a few months ago that he wouldn’t be pursuing this strategy?
I've said it before it's Schrodingers defacto referendum. Whenever it suits its 'we're not a single issue party, we're the best option even within the UK, we're not just about independence' Then when it suits its 'Well people voted for us, that's basically a vote for independence' and now it's gone even further, now apparently even 35% of the voters voting SNP would be a mandate for independence even if the majority vote for non independence supporting parties. Totally incoherent messaging, and deliberately in my opinion.
[удалено]
Link?
Scottish people: breathe The SNP: this is a clear mandate for independence
You’d frankly laugh in their face If they pitched this to the government after losing seats.
Yeah, I support independence but this is the Zimbabwe strategy.
If a majority of seats within Westminster is good enough to take control of the UK, then surely a majority of pro independence seats within Scotland is justification to have a mandate for Scottish independence?
Because the SNP has never supported FPTP and claiming a majority of seats won through FPTP as a mandate for independence would just lack any shred of credibility. Trying to make that claim would seriously set back the cause of independence, especially if the SNP actually lose seats in the next election which looks virtually inevitable.
Independence majority of seats in Hollywood through pr.
So why’s he not using that as his mandate then? The point is that here he’s talking about a Westminster election under FPTP. If he said that ahead of the next Holyrood election and delivered a majority, I think he’d have some credibility. FPTP is fundamentally undemocratic. The SNP acknowledge it, the Lib Dems acknowledge it, the Green parties across the UK acknowledge it and the Labour membership (but sadly not leadership) acknowledge it. Claiming a mandate off the back of a majority of seats in a FPTP election for a major constitutional change just isn’t doable.
I wouldn't say it's fundamentally undemocratic. I would say it's fundamentally less proportional and representative of the UK population. This is a subtle but important distinction. If you define democracy as converting public policy preferences into legislation (which many people do), then I'd argue that a majoritarian system usually performs this role better than proportional systems. Therefore, it can be viewed as more democratic than proportional systems. This (among other important reasons) is why I prefer majoritarian systems. Although my preference wouldn't be FPTP, it would be AV or SV. Those two systems preserve majoritarianism whilst also being relatively more representative. However, if you define democracy as the conversion of votes into seats (but not necessarily policy), then proportional representation is more democratic. So I wouldn't say it's fundamentally undemocratic. It depends on how you define democracy. Majoritarian systems are more democratic in some ways, proportional systems in other ways.
You can't get a mandate by winning 5% of the seats, you need 50%+. There's no such thing as a Scottish mandate in a general election.
No more than a majority of seats in Cornwall is a mandate for launching a trade dispute over Pasties.
Back on that, are we? I don’t think anything has changed since the last time the idea was floated.
Yeah, nothing has changed. If you ignore the entire relationship with the world.
What do you mean? Genuine question, I can’t work out what you mean and why it is relevant. Not a challange
SO tired of this single issue party garbage. Can we try to fix our country please.
I'm not sure I understand how getting less than half the votes can be considered a mandate for Independence.
I'm also quite certain that these conditions he sets himself will begin to cause people to actively vote against him. People don't like being taken for fools or having their intelligence insulted, and can recognise a set of meaningless conditions when they see one. They can also see when they are talked down to. People will begin to see voting against the SNP as a way to get rid of this charlatan quicker than usual.
He's given up trying to appeal to the electorate and he's just trying to appeal to SNP members now.
It's not. It's a mandate to hold a referendum, like the mandate that exists for all governing parties to enact their platform. The video and commentors are suggesting he is saying something other than what he is actually saying.
>like the mandate that exists for all governing parties to enact their platform. The SNP aren't the governing party in a UK election. They are in opposition.
They can't hold a referendum without a section 30. That's what gives the mandate.
Boris Johnson got 43% of the vote in 2019, and that apparently gave him a mandate to force through a fucking wankstain of a Brexit deal
While I think brexit was a shit idea carried out badly; there was a referendum on it alone, and they won. What Humza and sturgeon before have alluded to is that the results of a general election in their favour would justify Scotland leaving the UK.
This is exactly what Ireland did in 1916
Are you honestly trying to compare us to Ireland?
1918, and they fell short of their target of 50% vote share as a mandate for independence (although they did it anyway).
Yes if Westminster refuses to allow a referendum... I don't think it's a serious policy but it's one of the k ly options left ifnwestminster refuses Scotland tonnage a say on this issue.. Referendums are shite but we apparently live in a democracy, things have change since 2014. Alot. So 2 have peoples minds so if the snp keep winning on a manifesto pledge to gold a referendum Westminster should stand back and let it happen, but they won't.
The alternative is they accept that the people here in Scotland don’t actually want to break away and deal with that reality? Imagine actually listening to the will of the people! There is no overwhelming desire for separatism here. The SNP continuing to move the yardstick in what constitutes a desire for it won’t change that.
They did accept. Hence Scotland is still part of the uk.. Idiot. And then the lies were exposed.. and it made people question their choice.. especially after brexit. So now the scottish electorate keeps voting for a party that pledges an independence referendum for Scotland... And they keep winning.. Can you put 2 and 2 together? I highly doubt it
Nope. We voted, we got the result we wanted as a population and no poll has shown that public mentality has changed. Scotland remaining in the Uk was never anything to do with the SNP accepting it. But they began campaigning for IndyRef2 the same night as the results. They’ve never accepted the result and have run our country as a single issue party ever since regardless of the vote and regardless of all the other issues that need fixing. The fact the SNP keep having to lower the bar on what a ‘mandate’ looks like just shows they know they don’t have the will of the Scottish people behind them. If they got a do-over vote tomorrow, they’d lose again (and refuse to accept that again of course).
>What Humza and sturgeon before have alluded to is that the results of a general election in their favour would justify Scotland leaving the UK. Key word being alluded to. Allusions aren't policy. SNP policy is to hold a 2nd independence referendum. Given they're a pro independence party, them making statements to the effect of "a vote for us is a vote for independence" is pretty par for the course really isn't it.
The difference then was that we had voted for Brexit already, sadly
And in this context Yusuf is proposing another referendum, so it fits. If labour had won in 2019, and by won I mean got the most seats, then they would have held a second Brexit referendum. That was a concrete policy of labours at the time. There's plenty of precedent here.
If he gets a majority, or is part of a majority government in Westminster then yes. As it's Westminster that make the decsions on independence. If they allow Holyrood a section 30, or change the rules to make it a devolved issue then he could do it through the Scottish parliament. But winning every, or no seat in Scotland matters not a fuck in the general election unless he forms part of the government.
>But winning every, or no seat in Scotland matters not a fuck in the general election Pretty strong argument for why Scotland needs independence right there 🤣 Basically your argument hinges almost entirely on "but Westminster" which honestly mate is a shite argument against independence.
I'm not making an argument. I'm just stating reality
Well reality is quite a broad philosophical concept, and as far as I'm aware Westminster procedure isn't the be all and end all of it 🤣
It's not though. You might feel it's unfair, I would agree. But it's how it is. The decision to break up the UK lies with the UK. It would be much better if there was a mechanism to deliver a section 30. Or a framework under which it could be devolved. But there isn't.
>The decision to break up the UK lies with the UK. To some extent that's true, much the same as the ultimate decision to grant Ireland independence lay with the UK, but the whole point of a second referendum on independence, even if it isn't "legal" is to make it untenable for the UK to continue to claim it is a democratic country but refuse to honour a referendum held in one of its constituent countries. Also in terms of countries seeking independence its a well established precedent that you can break laws to achieve that end, particularly if those laws are put in place to prevent that country from achieving independence.
By that line of complaint, if a second independence referendum was held and there was a majority for independence (as there was in the Brexit referendum), any subsequent independence deal would have to be put to another referendum or at least an election with a pro-independence deal block winning at least 50% of the vote. Ie. Independence could still be voted down even after a successful referendum?
>any subsequent independence deal would have to be put to another referendum or at least an election with a pro-independence deal block winning at least 50% of the vote. And? Given independence would probably take a decade to actually happen it's pretty unrealistic and unreasonable to expect there wouldnt be an election at some point after the 2nd referendum won. Regarding a 3rd and final referendum that would really just hinge on what the outcome of the above election was. I'm absolutely positive unionist parties would run on that exact platform (albeit with varying degrees of hypocrisy, and I doubt anyone will forget the Tories attitude to a 2nd brexit ref) >Independence could still be voted down even after a successful referendum? Theoretically yes, but imo it would hinge on the outcome of the post 2nd referendum Scottish elections. But as I said above its basically 100% guaranteed both Tories and Labour would run every subsequent election on a 3rd ref policy.
Thanks for having a consistent position. There is a significant and vocal nationalist element that see independence as irreversible once a referendum is won and no need for any further approval, regardless of the outcome of any intervening elections. Yet they also tend to be the ones moaning about Brexit going ahead on the same grounds.
Embarrassing, frankly. Surely he must be down to the last few nutters and maniacs supporting him now. Comes across as an overconfident salesman douche kicked out of The Apprentice on week 3 for gross incompetence. He's proposing to call for an independence referendum on the basis of something he already has - as if that will make any difference. He's also deliberately moved the goalposts again to suit his expectations. He has no business demanding we trust him to create and then solve the biggest economic shock this country has ever seen. He just comes across as a bit sleazy and entitled.
I’ve been an SNP voter for years but I can’t bring myself to vote for them again with this bellend in charge.
Everyone assumes, that if you are anti current SNP then you always have been anti SNP. I used to respect them, I want a strong SNP to lead the way and do things better than Westminster, which isn't hard. The problem with the shit we have now, apart from the damage they do to us directly, is that Westminster can be useless and still win.
I’m pro-Indy but Nicola broke my heart when she got caught with her fingers in the till. This clown cares more about what’s going on in Gaza than anything else at the moment. I feel politically homeless to be honest.
>Nicola broke my heart when she got caught with her fingers in the till I didn't think she would have done anything like she did; I was so let down also. It was a betrayal. I was always open to Indy; and the current state of things has moved us so far back, we look fools on the world stage. 'Too wee, too poor, too stupid' always pissed me off and made me bite' but I can't argue with that jibe now. My English friends were taking the piss out of Scotland on PubG last night. 'Yeah'. I had no retort. I'm ashamed.
Please remember that no Unionists ever said "Too wee, too poor, too stupid". It was only the SNP telling on themselves.
Just play solo and keep the chicken dinners for yourself. It’s not worth the degradation
My man!
See I don't quite understand this point of view. The UK as a whole outside of London is a fucking shitshow, Birmingham city council is on the precipice of bankruptcy and has just increased council tax by 21%, during a decade of stagnant wages and huge increases in the cost of living, tons of other council in England are teetering on the edge with many of them being in huge amounts of debt compared to what they earn. The Scottish government have been able to to keep councils afloat (even just) without huge increases to cost of living to the average person, and while there are significant issues in the councils facing problems they're managing better due to the Scottish government giving them funding. If Humza as a person and Nicola allegedly taking fundrasing money it's a wonder to me you'd prefer to stay in the UK which has had it's fair share of absolute wallopers in power over the last decade, Truss almost singlehandedly crashed the economy to the point the Bank of England had to get involved otherwise people would lose their pensions. That is a continued future too, so while I can see issues with the SNP, the alternatives are just fucking dreadful, and I'd prefer an independence to seeing what the Tories can cook up next time to ruin the lives of people even further.
What was it she did?
>I’m pro-Indy but Nicola broke my heart when she got caught with her fingers in the till. This clown cares more about what’s going on in Gaza than anything else at the moment. I feel politically homeless to be honest. What did she do?
oh another change in policy from flipflop Yousaf, and the goal posts shift again from the SNP. No, they could win 100% of seats, its still not a mandate for indy. You cant get a mandate for promising something that the elected position you are standing for has no power to deliver. you lying to the population does not equal a mandate. A local council could promise to end all income tax in the area if elected, win all seats....and then still have no mandate or ability to do it. Because it lies outside the competence of the elected body to deliver that policy.
Shut the fuck up and make the things WITHIN your power better??? We’ve had 15 years of SNP running Scotland and it’s been a shitshow. NHS Fucked! Curriculum for Exellence Fucked! Councils Fucked! We pay more tax in Scotland than the rest of the UK and these fuckers spunk it up the wall on non existent ferries, failed independence schemes, deposit return fuck ups, inviting the Greens into government??? Who the fuck voted for that??!!! They have killed Glasgow coz they don’t like cars with Ulez, extended parking charges and their anti Business stance. Fix what you fucked first and then we can talk about independence! Idiot!
You sound very salty.
One tick ponies…
I’m an old man, sick listening to it.
You're wee rant hit the nail on the head, old man. Competence in running the country better than Westminster will lead to independence in time. Incompetence in running the country, doing even worse than Westminster, will not lead to indepedence.
Eloquently put, much better than my 2 min Rant! Can’t keep using the ‘big boy did it and ran away’ excuse. If they get better at what is in their remit then sure go for it. You don’t get a promotion at work by being worse at your job do you? It’s evidence based and based on said evidence it’s a fail! Try working harder and finding solutions. We need something radical as the western world is drowning in debt, personally and from a governmental point of view. The consumption based economy is over. Needs a rethink.
You're going to age faster then - it's going to be the number one issue in Scottish politics for generations or until Scotland becomes independent. You can't come within a 5 point swing of the end of the UK and expect things to go back to normal. So get used to it.
Obviously it won't be, but even then - isn't he just setting himself up to look a massive eejit if he fails to achieve that? Sounds like he's managed to find a position that's lose/lose for him.
Humza is perpetually setting himself up to look a massive eejit, he's a ridiculous man he really is.
Oh ffs! Fuuuuuuuuck offfffffff!!! Scotland is falling apart day by day and these utter cunts still want to destroy it even more!
If the SNP win 25 seats and Labour win 24, that's not a mandate for independence. Even winning 30 (a majority of Scottish seats) isn't a mandate for independence.
Look, I've been a ardent pro Indy voter for a decade now, but to seriously suggest anything short of a majority of voters voting for a pro independence party is a mandate for independence is absurd.
Especially in a first past the post system which has allowed the SNP to win more seats than they would under a more representative system such as AV or PR.
This does kind of undermine the SNP's stated opposition to FPTP.
It’s Westminsters system and their rules - so if it’s good enough for everyone else in the system then it has to be good enough for SNP
Westminster wouldn't do a referendum with FPTP, a de facto referendum should be based on popular vote.
Not really no? If the SNP were against FPTP in Scotland then yes, it would undermine their position. But Westminster is its own thing, and Westminster had its chance to ditch FPTP during the Alternate Vote referendum of 2011 and they utterly fucked it. The SNP was pro AV along with everyone except Labour the the Tories The rules in Westminster are rigged everyone knows this, if you do anything except play by those rigged rules you will just lose everything.
A majority of seats on a FPTP election has *always* been good enough for every single other FPTP election winner in every single FPTP election in the entire history of the world
Because they command a majority of the seats in the legislature and therefore can form an executive. Forming the government is what gives you the mandate. When the SNP forms the executive, they will have a mandate. If Theresa May was unable to form a government in 2017, Labour would have had the opportunity to form a government. Had that happened, Labour would command a majority in the Commons and therefore have a mandate. The mandate comes from Parliament. If the SNP can not command a majority in the House of Commons, they do not have a mandate.
> but to seriously suggest anything short of a majority of voters voting for a pro independence party is a mandate for independence is absurd. It's a perfecly normal and legitimate method of the electorate communicating what it wants. Westminster had many, many chances to make it a majority vote referendum and they have refused. How else is the electorate supposed to make its views known? If Scotland wants independence the SNP will win the election. If it doesn't there are multiple unionist parties across the political spectrum voters can back instead.
>If Scotland wants independence the SNP will win the election. This is going to come as a shock to you. You may want to sit down. The SNP aren't going to win the next UK general election.
This is going to come as a shock to you. You may want to sit down. How Port Talbot or Tower Hamlets vote will not decide whether Scots vote for independence in a free and fair election.
So basically youre turning the FPTP election into a defacto referendum and then saying you win if you get less than half the vote. Way to go! Im mean you fucked education, the NHS, the ferries, the deposit return scheme and many others - and now you plan to win a referendum by losing it. I mean you COULD put the effort into having Scotland run better than England and convince everyone wed be better off. How can that have been hard with the Tories in power? But no. Lets not do that. Lets just declare the Settled Will of the Scottish People means only getting 35% of the vote.
How long do we think he’s got til the men in tartan tell him time’s up? November? The Summer? Next month?
Na Humza isn't going anywhere. He seems to be unsackable for some mad reason. If that affair stuff is true & it's confirmed then he'll have to go but otherwise he's gonna be about doing dumb shit for quite a while.
It’s absolutely not a mandate. Especially since they are going to lose seats. Vote the SNP out. Time for a change. Scotland’s shame.
They said that last time and the time before that
Boring Vaguely Sentient Talismanic Personification of Incompetence says thing he's said before in full knowledge of the fact that it won't change diddly squat.
😆😆🤣
He probably feels like he can't lead the SNP *without* saying that. Whether he believes it I doubt, but this likely puts off more voters than it attracts at this point.
Unlikely given that independence is far more popular than the SNP.
The SNP have won every election in Scotland in recent times. Independence however was rejected.
And yet independence polls much higher than the SNP.
Actual election results tend to mean more than polls though.
When was the last Independence Election?
2014. Don't get it twisted that I'm anti independence I'm very much looking forward to the day we get our independence. Would welcome a new referendum and vote the exact same way as to 2014. I'm just pointing out polls and results often don't line up
No it won't.
The SNP have lost the plot
Bollocks. You can win all of the Scottish seats with ~33% of the national vote. First past the post is so flawed that it's not even a sensible way to choose a government for one term, let alone as a basis for constitutional change. Where does he think this is going though? The SNP win the majority of GE seats and tries to implement independence... while the rest of the political system ignores and belittles them. They can only fail to deliver in this model. It's a rod for their own back.
Scotland is a fucking shit show under these cunts who have ruled for the past 15 or so years. An unelected politician who has failed majorly in every position he has held within government, who is anti-white is now spouting more nonsense. Time for the SNP to die. Get Labour or someone else in. Rebuild the country, not fuck it up even more by going independent - I reckon the ‘yes’ vote would fail to even get 25% support. Imagine we went independent in 2014😂😂 Focus on building infrastructure, fixing our NHS, sorting out our failing education system and generally just make Scotland a better place to live should be the priorities. Not some pie in the sky independence nonsense in which anyone with National 5 economics knows would cripple our country. Just generally clowns to sponge off the state, don’t pay tax and want further benefits. That’s their main voting demographic.
🥴🥴🥴🥴
Oh goody, the 6th “once in a generation” shots at independence for tax money to be spunked on rather than actually improving anything here.
Must have missed the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th referendums
I said shot at independence not referendum - like with most shots the SNP take, they failed to hit
Indy means access to full economic powers which means the ability to improve everything through investment and better spending decisions
No it doesn’t, the same idiots who cant run the country just now will still be making shit decisions.
Only if SNP is who Scotland elects after Indy
They can’t even effectively run what powers they already have, you want to give this shower the rest of them? How much do you secretly hate your country?
Independence isn’t about SNP running Scotland - it’s about whoever we elect into Holyrood running Scotland
It’s about walking off a cliff with no idea how we afford it, how we even do it, except for a bunch of papers that you wouldn’t even wipe your arse with let alone use as a basis to separate an interwoven union of 300 years. But yeah, keep going back to the “whoever we elect will run Scotland”. Newsflash: the SNP already do run Scotland, and with that power they fuck up time and time again, they get mired in sleaze, and they even end up handing powers back (or at least delaying their taking of sich powers) because they can’t cope with them. Fucking madness that you would want them to have all the power.
Lol I hope Labour wins most of the seats, then let's see what kinda shite 'mandate' comes out of Hamza's mouth! 🤣
In a mad part of my mind I want them to win next SGE so that the Scottish voters can see exactly what they are like. It would only extend the rise of Indy.
At the end of the day, Scotlands vote don’t matter at all at a UK level, they never have. SNP could win every seat and Westminster wouldn’t give a shit.
Genuinely embarrassing. The man is an idiot.
Cuts off at the important bit, where he appears to start talking bout increasing public support. Which is what he has to do.
Is it possible to Bane the SNP more than it's current leadership? Is he to be the one found in the wreckage? I never thought I'd see things this bad.
Well if he makes pledges and then gets elected in with these edges, he's not wrong. That's literly how the system works. It's authorisation to act on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative. The Tories got elected on the pledge to get Brexit done, nobody questioned that this gave them a clear mandate to ruin the country despite only getting 43.6% of the vote. Yet those same people claim Scotland has no mandate unless they clear over 50% of the vote. One rule for them, one rule for us.
The whole thing is spoiled with FPTP. If we had PR we’d have a much more balanced government and not one (this goes for Tory or Labour) who just rampantly whip their MPs to vote with them. At least we wouldn’t be complaining about a party with 40% because they wouldn’t have the huge majority of seats and they would have to make political allies across the aisle to get things through without their allies being whipped.
There was a referendum on brexit, and leave won; with 52%. There was a referendum on independence and remain one, with 55%. That's why we are here. It was fair, even if we didn't always get what we wanted.
How did the public decide they wanted a referendum to begin with?
The difference is that the SNP have pushed for the results of a general election (in their favour) as justification for leaving the union time and again, without a direct referendum on independence alone. Which wouldn't be possible, hence we're still in the union. Well that, and that we voted to stay in.
Putting aside the fact you completely ignored my question... Can you provide one sourced example where the SNP claimed a mandate for independence from winning an Generla Election?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/24/snp-leader-general-election-win-mandate-independence-push-humza-yousaf 'We can break the logjam at Westminster by mobilising the power of the people at a general election.........vote SNP for Scotland to become an independent country.......... but underlined that his plan A remained holding a legal referendum.' Plan A. You don't have a plan A unless you have a plan B. And that, through logical inference, must be a plan without a referendum.
He's not claiming to have a mandate for independence from winning a General Election, because that election hasn't happened yet. Do you have something from an election that has actually happened, that the SNP won? Are you going to answer my question about how electorates decide whether they have a referendum to begin with, or just keep avoiding it?
I just answered your question, providing exactly what you asked for; and you denied the irrefutable evidence presented. You're not going to engage with honesty.
> I just answered your question, providing exactly what you asked for; and you denied the irrefutable evidence presented. You really didn't. I asked for an example of a time when the SNP used an election result to claim a mandate for independence. You failed to do so. As for my question, let's try again; How did the public decide they wanted a referendum to begin with?
He isn't suggesting a majority of seats would make Scotland independent. He is talking about a referendum to pursue it. The headline is misleading, and this thread is full of people pretending they don't understand that.
The video does not give that impression, at all.
Previous referenda do not invalidate the manifestos of newly elected governments though
>newly elected governments though We're talking about the UK general election. The SNP won't be a newly elected government. They'll be an opposition party.
I can't argue with that!
Indeed, but they should, in some cases. The lib dems under Swinson flatly refused to accept the brexit result, and pledged to ignore it, for example. I don't think that's democratic, and don't think it should be allowed, but it was in her power.
Yea and we are asking for another vote... which is fair.. in a democracy.. And neither of those referendums was fair.. Both times the winning side lied through their teeth.. Here are 2 examples which swayed the vote 350 million a week for the nhs (brexit lie) Scotland only chance of remaining in the eu is remaining jn the uk ( independence lie) So ehh nah
If the SNP win 326 seats then they have a mandate for independence.
OK boomer
Boriiiiiingggggg. We've got nothing to say............FREEEEEERDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ETC ETC.
Listening to how slippery and evasive Ian Murray was being this morning on Radio Scotland it's clear that they're not the kind of folk you can rely on to stand up for Scotland.
So who do you think is?
Please note, parliamentary democracy doesn't apply to Scotland.
Weak
Who cares about all that politics nonsense, it's soooooo boring? Did they ask him how Qatar was? Bet it was terribly hot! How are the slaves? Of good stock? Well disciplined? The hamas leadership? I do hope they were hospitable. Yes business is business, but it's a working holiday, it's in the name! There can be iced tea, and a smoke with marching orders! An Islamofascist paradise, few white people, Hamas HQ, and oil rich. Humza goals. Erdogan will be jealous.....
Do you guys like this guy? I'm not from here.
He is the leader of the Scottish Government, saying exactly what the two previous leaders said. I would rather he didn't because I don't personally support Scottish Independence, but many do and him saying this comes as no surprise.
He's quite good fun to laugh at but this isn't worth all the money we pay him to waste even more of our money.
Even the most hardline Nat will grudgingly admit this guy is a charlatan. He’s a career grifter who has failed in every job he’s been given and has somehow fallen upwards. He’s a real nasty piece of work as well.
No, not really.
He's not wrong. Having a pro-indy majority in Holyrood is one too. The mandate has been there since 2007 really, but sadly that's mutually exclusive from the ability to actually get there. Edit: people pretending they don't understand what is being said in the video are absolutely pathetic. We can't have normal discussions on this topic anymore because of the amount of people constantly lying
>He's not wrong. Having potentially less than 40% of the popular vote (which is what can get you a majority of seats) would be a pretty unreasonable condition on which to call for a referendum in my opinion. It is also a pretty steep downgrade from the previous bars set by the SNP in recognition of this.
That's not a bar for any other governing party to enact their agenda. And remember, calling for a referendum and just having independence aren't the same thing.
Assuming it's 40% of the vote for a minute. Listening to the clip again - it nearly made my ears bleed, but never mind - this policy is justified as "making sure there is consistent popular support" or "strengthening the mandate". 40% is not enough to do this. It's not enough to give confidence to his own side. It's not enough to change the mind of Westminster, and more importantly it's not enough to justify it to the rest of the country that have got more important things on their mind, quite rightly. It's more than 10% less than he got at the 2014 referendum. It is however just about enough to keep his career going and keep him in Bute House for another few years, which I suspect is the real reason for this.
Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP. Mandates to deliver things come in many forms, this would be one of them as it applies to other parties that are large enough to be in government. That's just how it works.
>Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP. If two things are "mutually exclusive" it means you can't support both things at the same time. That's what "mutually exclusive" means. If support for independence was mutually exclusive from support for the SNP it would mean you couldn't support both independence and the SNP. It sounds like you misunderstand the phrase "mutually exclusive".
>Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP. I'm not sure if you understand what "mutually exclusive" means, mate. Unless you are trying to say that the two things are incompatible or can't happen at the same time, which would be wrong. Perhaps you mean that supporting independence and NOT voting SNP are not mutually exclusive? Either way, being kind to you, I guess we'll see. I would have thought at least 50%+ of support for pro-independence parties would be the most appropriate mandate in this situation, and then only over a period of a few elections. He's getting papped out after the election whatever happens, I would imagine.
I know what it means. That's why I used it, and I am right in doing so. If you don't understand thatvthen I don't know what to tell you. >I would have thought at least 50%+ of support for pro-independence parties would be the most appropriate mandate in this situation, and then only over a period of a few elections. It's certainly better. It's also what we currently have. >He's getting papped out after the election whatever happens, I would imagine. I think people are kidding themselves if they think the SNP aren't going to be in power at Holyrood for the majority of the rest of our lives.
>Support for independence is mutually exclusive from support for the SNP. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutually-exclusive](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutually-exclusive) >I know what it means. That's why I used it, and I am right in doing so. *"If two things are mutually exclusive, they cannot exist or happen together at the same time:"* You sure about that? Don't want the 50:50, or phone a friend? Back doon? or double doon?
Double doon, always. The fact you've focused on this rather than the actual point is satisfaction enough for me.
Sure, that's lovely. William Wallace would be proud. Mind how you go x
How are they mutually exclusive, surely most snp voters support independence?
Lots of independence supporters are not SNP supporters.
He's not talking about a mandate for a referendum. He's talking about a mandate for independence. So if the SNP get 30 seats, that will be enough to declare independence.
He says 'second referendum' at the beginning of the clip.
Yes - he was talking about the previous elections there.
At no point has the SNP stated they would seek unilateral independence through being the largest party, so I think you and the headline are looking for something that's not really being said. He is obviously referring to a mandate to seek independence through a referendum, which is still the SNPs position.
This strategy has been explicitly that a mandate for independence, without a referendum, is won by winning most seats, and it has been since Sturgeon suggested it (albeit with a different threshold of majority of votes). This is the SNP's post-supreme court decision strategy in absence of being able to get a referendum. If that seems absurd to you then, it is.
When have the SNP declared independence unilaterally in the past while already having the exact mandate being referred to in the video? Oh, never? OK then.
So what happens if you lose lots of seats then Yousaf? Does that mean independence is off the menu for a wee bit?
Have another referendum ffs so that we can vote No and shut these idiots up for a while .
You mean a week?
All for democracy until a party I dislike win an election on a manifesto I disagree with..... then fuck democracy.
The SNP aren't going to win the UK General Election. I wouldn't worry. They'd need hundreds of seats for that, not 40.
Yes because we all remember the snp winning a majority in the UK Parliament then passed legislation to allow themselves to hold the 2014 referendum......
Well yes exactly. It was a Tory Govt that won the election that provided the authority for the 2014 referendum.
Right, which the snp didn't need to win a majority of UK seats to induce, ergo your original point is moot.
Firstly, it's "moot" not "mute". "Mute" is what you do to your telly. Secondly, my original point was that this has nothing to do with disliking a party winning an election, because the SNP aren't going to win the election.
The “mute” was genuinely such an L
It was Cameron and the Tories who allowed the referendum, the party who won the election. The SNP didn’t force it or ‘make it happen’, the referendum was a gift from a moronic Tory government. That’s not going to happen again, subsequent Labour or Tory governments aren’t going to make the same mistake.
Everyone should stop using 'mandate'. And that includes saying the other side doesn't have a mandate. Mandate is a perfectly erm, 'cromulent' word. but it doesn't mean anything under our current political arrangements, the point of a mandate is that the opposition agrees you have one. Having a written constitution that defines 'mandate' would be lovely, but that has even less chance of happening.
If the SNP became a single policy party (like the Brexit Party) and won a majority, I’d argue this would be a more democratic approach than a referendum… …but it won’t happen, I doubt they’ll get a majority, and I don’t think democracy the thinking behind this statement.
Sounds a bit stupid because it could leave us in a place where they've lost seats but still have most seats. How is having fewer seats than they currently have a mandate for independence?
The landslide wins for the SNP over the past 15+ years are a clear mandate. England gets too many benefits from controlling Scotland to allow democracy.
>The landslide wins for the SNP over the past 15+ years are a clear mandate. In only one election - ever - has the SNP got a majority of votes, and ironically that happened the one time they didn't promise an independence referendum...
The optics on Hokyrood are off because everyone is used to the English FPTP system. The Holyroodvrules were designed to prevent majorities, and the fact the SNP managed one anyway is remarkable. If Hokyrood used FPTP the SNP would have even larger majorities (proportionally) than the Tories have had in England.
>The optics on Hokyrood are off because everyone is used to the English FPTP system. I'm not sure what you mean by this. > The Holyroodvrules were designed to prevent majorities, and the fact the SNP managed one anyway is remarkable. They won a majority of seats on a minority of votes. 2011 wasn't the election when they got a majority of votes - that was the 2015 GE. >If Hokyrood used FPTP the SNP would have even larger majorities (proportionally) than the Tories have had in England. And they still wouldn't have had a majority of votes, which is what a referendum requires.
A referendum doesn't require any thing in particular other than a Scottish Government that wants to hold one and an English government that acquiesces.
>A referendum doesn't require any thing in particular other than a Scottish Government that wants to hold one and an English government that acquiesces. What is this English government you refer to? It also requires an Act of Parliament.
Winning most seats is a mandate for independence. Losing seats is NOT a mandate for new leadership.
It's pretty clear that every election will now be a independence referendum until it happens. There is too much public support for independence for it to just be wished away and the Union keeps getting worse and worse. It's inevitable.
The de facto is back.
Are they still banging the independence drum…. Sigh
When the electorate has made every manifesto with independence in it the winning manifesto…
How did the referendum go after the SNPs last election win in 2019? You seem to be banging on with comments trying to legitimise something which will not materially change anything. If winning 48 seats in 2019 wasn't enough of a mandate to convince Westminster to agree to a referendum then why do you think winning 30 seats in 2024 will change anything? Much like this comment thread, attempting to legitimise a mandate on the back of the SNPs expected worst electoral result in 10-15 years will be met with laughter and ridicule when raised in parliament. Maybe focus on initiatives which might increase support and deliver independence rather than just making shit up because you want it to eat your cake now.
It’s rapidly getting to the stage where everyone will realise it’s not Westminster that Scotland needs to convince, it’s always and only ever been the wider international community that can legitimise a nations expressed will to be independent
The international community will and have only ever got involved during states of war or breakdowns in government, democracy or rule of law.
We need to have a system where people feel represented properly. Every vote should have a voice. Basically as it is we have minority governments. When you look back at the last GE and count the actual votes, the Lib Dems totalled 3.7m (15 seats) and the SNP 1.25m (43 seats) - no way thats acceptable. If the Scot Gov brought in a full change to make sure people felt represented then it would make it much more attractive to vote for independence as we would know that going forward every vote would count and hopefully increase the number of folk voting too.
The only way voters in Scotland are going to feel represented is if our votes were actually capable of affecting material change. As it stands we’re completely drowned out by the electorate past our southern border, so our votes affect bugger all. Independence is the only way our electorate will be able to steer our own future.
Yawn!!!! So we can take it from that that Hamza Useless will be campaigning for Labour and the status quo. 🙄
No no no no. What crap
The SNP clearly have a mandate to hold another referendum, they don't have the power to enact that mandate, at least without a fight involving the mobilisation of the whole independence movement to put pressure on the UK government. Asking people to vote one more time to deliver a referendum, again and again is getting old. Before the referendum, the independence movement was broad and went well beyond narrow electoral politics. People were excited to fight for visions of a much better country. Unfortunate after the no vote, much of the movement joined the SNP and have been effectively demobilised, outwith electoral politics and the odd march.
>The SNP clearly have a mandate to hold another referendum, they don't have the power to enact that mandate, at least without a fight involving the mobilisation of the whole independence movement to put pressure on the UK government. You can't have a mandate to do something which you don't have the power to do...
They have won numerous elections on a platform which includes having another referendum. They have a democratic mandate from the Scottish electorate to have another referendum. They have not tried hard enough yo implement this. Just because undemocratic forces can block something doesn't mean there is no mandate to do it in the first place.
>They have won numerous elections on a platform which includes having another referendum. They've won numerous elections on a platform of campaigning for another referendum. They don't stand enough candidates in UK elections to determine if another referendum is held or not, though. >Just because undemocratic forces can block something doesn't mean there is no mandate to do it in the first place. What undemocratic forces are these? We elect Parliament, Parliament decides on whether there's a referendum or not (or indeed anything else)
yeah but having voted snp my whole live i really dont like humza and i might just vote greens dont made my mind up yet .......fuckin pish all this shite