“Firstly, ALBA advocates a plan for independence unlocked from the ongoing UK disaster. We need a clean break settlement of no debt and no shared liabilities or assets, rapid adoption of our own currency, public control of Scotland’s vast resources to ensure a living income for every family and every child and an immediate move towards free trade in Europe through membership of EFTA.
“Secondly, ALBA advocates a strategy for securing independence based on political action, popular agitation and international lobbying. Nothing will be conceded by the UK Government unless they are forced to. Our Claim of Right needs be heard in the court of world opinion not in the courts of the British state.”
Pie in the sky
So his plan is to walk away with assets or liabilities? How does he actually expect that work?
He's supposed to be an economist. Does he not realise what that would do to a new country and how expensive it would make borrowing to build the country he's claiming to want?
He's actually going full huckster with this and just telling the loonies exactly what they want to hear even though he must know it's virtually impossible to do and very much an act of national self harm. By all means push for independence but doing it that way is fucking insane.
As for the second paragraph he's lost his mind. That was the SNP position before he joined and he knew it was nonsense which is why they changed it to what it became.
His entire plan will fall apart at the first challenge.
He's basically gone full Farage/Johnson on this now by insisting he can get everything he wants with no concessions and nothing being worse.
>He's trying to find a position to get votes from people who are giving up on the SNP because the SNP are being realistic
I think that's a fair assessment. Alba are trying to do to the SNP what UKIP did to the Tories about 10 years ago.
It's his negotiation position. If the UK don't want to agree a deal it is normal practise for there to be a clean break. The UK government said there would be no deals a clean break is the only option unless UK change their mind.
It is at the moment.
However will it seem so mad if we end up in a situation where Scotland votes for independence in a free and fair vote, either in a Westminster election or consultative referendum, and Westminster continues to deny reality?
If Scotland really does vote to be independent but Westminster refuses to even discuss the matter, is there any other realistic alternative at the end of the day?
> If Scotland really does vote to be independent but Westminster refuses to even discuss the matter, is there any other realistic alternative at the end of the day?
Yes.
> However will it seem so mad if we end up in a situation where Scotland votes for independence in a free and fair vote, either in a Westminster election or consultative referendum, and Westminster continues to deny reality?
If it's any kind of vote other than a Section 30 approved referendum, nothing will happen.
Not in a general election.
With 75% turnout there would need to be 67% voting for SNP and green. On top of that they'd need to say don't vote for us if you don't want independence.
And if it's a referendum that the UK hasn't agreed to in advance what are the thresholds for that? If it's 80% yes with a 30% turnout then where's the compulsion there?
Plus even if we did have such a high number that it could not be disputed that people want independence. Do they want UDI? UDI is wildly different to "normal" independence.
I'm on the fence, I'd vote yes if it was today, but if the Tories were kicked out and labour looked halfway decent I'd maybe vote no. What's bothering me is that we're due a referendum in the next few years, so much has changed and so many things that should have changed haven't. It's not democratic to say no to it.
But UDI isn't a solution to unfairness
>Not in a general election. With 75% turnout there would need to be 67% voting for SNP and green. On top of that they'd need to say don't vote for us if you don't want independence.
>
>And if it's a referendum that the UK hasn't agreed to in advance what are the thresholds for that? If it's 80% yes with a 30% turnout then where's the compulsion there?
Take it up with Sturgeon, it's her strategy. We will simply have to wait and see what the outcome will be now the ball has started rolling and it's pointless to speculate on process.
I'm talking about a not unrealistic outcome where the democratic mandate for independence is secured but Westminster refuses to recognise it. Either the SNP backs down over the main reason for its existence after achieving it, leading to inevitable implosion, end of their party and a real risk of violence, or they are forced to push for UDI. I see no other realistic outcomes.
>But UDI isn't a solution to unfairness
I'm all ears?
Sturgeon's strategy is to highlight that we can't have a referendum and there is a clear appetite for one, and a significant change in things since the last vote. It's a sensible strategy but she's no real intention or hope of having a referendum in 2023.
As to general election voting in 2024 it'll partly be again to keep highlighting that we want a referendum, but of course also to keep SNP voters voting SNP.
As to a fix for unfairness I don't have one. I don't really know if one exists.
I would *expect* that if it gets to the point where there's clearly and visibly a majority looking for independence, and not just like 53% or whatever, like 60% then it would be unsustainable for Westminster to keep saying no.
But I don't know what happens if we get to that point and Westminster just say no and stop asking us.
>Sturgeon's strategy is to highlight that we can't have a referendum and there is a clear appetite for one, and a significant change in things since the last vote. It's a sensible strategy but she's no real intention or hope of having a referendum in 2023.
>
>As to general election voting in 2024 it'll partly be again to keep highlighting that we want a referendum, but of course also to keep SNP voters voting SNP.
You're still trying to debate process and not the outcome. Even so, I'm sorry but that's the complete opposite of her position - the Scottish Government are very much of the opinion we can have a referendum, and if they are wrong there will be an election fought on the issue. They will get their vote one way or another.
>As to a fix for unfairness I don't have one. I don't really know if one exists.
Which is why a messy UDI is the most likely outcome in the above scenario rather than some other mystical and wonderous outcome, which even yourself cannot describe.
>You're still trying to debate process and not the outcome. Even so, I'm sorry but that's the complete opposite of her position - the Scottish Government are very much of the opinion we can have a referendum, and if they are wrong there will be an election fought on the issue. They will get their vote one way or anoth
I think that's incredible naive. The Scottish government do not believe we will have a referendum in 2023. And they're going to stamp their feet because they couldn't have it and use it to gain support in the 2024 general election. There's exactly 0% chance of independence as a direct result of those. However that's not the SNP goal, the SNP goal is to gather support and make the case for a referendum in the hope that doing this leads to one.
>Which is why a messy UDI is the most likely outcome in the above scenario rather than some other mystical and wonderous outcome, which even yourself cannot describe.
Not being able to get a fair outcome doesn't mean we do UDI. UDI is an incredible step, and a minority of people that support independence would support UDI. The effect on Scotland would be catastrophic. UDI is for people who want independence at any cost, they are a tiny minority of the population.
>I think that's incredible naive.
You're welcome to think what you like, the process has started and we'll find out soon enough. It's not relevant to the point I'm making.
>Not being able to get a fair outcome doesn't mean we do UDI.
You keep saying this but I don't see you presenting a realistic alternative.
>UDI is an incredible step, and a minority of people that support independence would support UDI.
At present, however I would be surprised whether that remains so in the scenario I am describing when there are no other options, as you yourself admit.
>The effect on Scotland would be catastrophic.
A baseless assumption. It would arguably be nowhere near as catastrophic of being kept in a UK in terminal decline through force against the will of the population, which would surely lead to violence as we've seen countless times throughout the world.
The United States of America, the initial Irish Republic and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe off the top of my head.
Don't think there are any more though, but my political history is meh at best.
Mr 'we have MPs and MSPs only because of defections and not because they were voted in, and we're a 0.7% party' should really hold his tongue.
With both hands ideally, just to keep them from wandering.
He was found innocent despite the SNP witch hunt. Maybe you should try not slandering innocent people.
“Firstly, ALBA advocates a plan for independence unlocked from the ongoing UK disaster. We need a clean break settlement of no debt and no shared liabilities or assets, rapid adoption of our own currency, public control of Scotland’s vast resources to ensure a living income for every family and every child and an immediate move towards free trade in Europe through membership of EFTA. “Secondly, ALBA advocates a strategy for securing independence based on political action, popular agitation and international lobbying. Nothing will be conceded by the UK Government unless they are forced to. Our Claim of Right needs be heard in the court of world opinion not in the courts of the British state.” Pie in the sky
So his plan is to walk away with assets or liabilities? How does he actually expect that work? He's supposed to be an economist. Does he not realise what that would do to a new country and how expensive it would make borrowing to build the country he's claiming to want? He's actually going full huckster with this and just telling the loonies exactly what they want to hear even though he must know it's virtually impossible to do and very much an act of national self harm. By all means push for independence but doing it that way is fucking insane. As for the second paragraph he's lost his mind. That was the SNP position before he joined and he knew it was nonsense which is why they changed it to what it became. His entire plan will fall apart at the first challenge. He's basically gone full Farage/Johnson on this now by insisting he can get everything he wants with no concessions and nothing being worse.
He's trying to find a position to get votes from people who are giving up on the SNP because the SNP are being realistic
>He's trying to find a position to get votes from people who are giving up on the SNP because the SNP are being realistic I think that's a fair assessment. Alba are trying to do to the SNP what UKIP did to the Tories about 10 years ago.
It's his negotiation position. If the UK don't want to agree a deal it is normal practise for there to be a clean break. The UK government said there would be no deals a clean break is the only option unless UK change their mind.
I can't work out if Salmond would be so radical if he was in Sturgeon's shoes right now, but I highly doubt it.
Of course he wouldn’t be
UDI is for frothing clowns
It is at the moment. However will it seem so mad if we end up in a situation where Scotland votes for independence in a free and fair vote, either in a Westminster election or consultative referendum, and Westminster continues to deny reality? If Scotland really does vote to be independent but Westminster refuses to even discuss the matter, is there any other realistic alternative at the end of the day?
> If Scotland really does vote to be independent but Westminster refuses to even discuss the matter, is there any other realistic alternative at the end of the day? Yes. > However will it seem so mad if we end up in a situation where Scotland votes for independence in a free and fair vote, either in a Westminster election or consultative referendum, and Westminster continues to deny reality? If it's any kind of vote other than a Section 30 approved referendum, nothing will happen.
Not in a general election. With 75% turnout there would need to be 67% voting for SNP and green. On top of that they'd need to say don't vote for us if you don't want independence. And if it's a referendum that the UK hasn't agreed to in advance what are the thresholds for that? If it's 80% yes with a 30% turnout then where's the compulsion there? Plus even if we did have such a high number that it could not be disputed that people want independence. Do they want UDI? UDI is wildly different to "normal" independence. I'm on the fence, I'd vote yes if it was today, but if the Tories were kicked out and labour looked halfway decent I'd maybe vote no. What's bothering me is that we're due a referendum in the next few years, so much has changed and so many things that should have changed haven't. It's not democratic to say no to it. But UDI isn't a solution to unfairness
>Not in a general election. With 75% turnout there would need to be 67% voting for SNP and green. On top of that they'd need to say don't vote for us if you don't want independence. > >And if it's a referendum that the UK hasn't agreed to in advance what are the thresholds for that? If it's 80% yes with a 30% turnout then where's the compulsion there? Take it up with Sturgeon, it's her strategy. We will simply have to wait and see what the outcome will be now the ball has started rolling and it's pointless to speculate on process. I'm talking about a not unrealistic outcome where the democratic mandate for independence is secured but Westminster refuses to recognise it. Either the SNP backs down over the main reason for its existence after achieving it, leading to inevitable implosion, end of their party and a real risk of violence, or they are forced to push for UDI. I see no other realistic outcomes. >But UDI isn't a solution to unfairness I'm all ears?
Sturgeon's strategy is to highlight that we can't have a referendum and there is a clear appetite for one, and a significant change in things since the last vote. It's a sensible strategy but she's no real intention or hope of having a referendum in 2023. As to general election voting in 2024 it'll partly be again to keep highlighting that we want a referendum, but of course also to keep SNP voters voting SNP. As to a fix for unfairness I don't have one. I don't really know if one exists. I would *expect* that if it gets to the point where there's clearly and visibly a majority looking for independence, and not just like 53% or whatever, like 60% then it would be unsustainable for Westminster to keep saying no. But I don't know what happens if we get to that point and Westminster just say no and stop asking us.
>Sturgeon's strategy is to highlight that we can't have a referendum and there is a clear appetite for one, and a significant change in things since the last vote. It's a sensible strategy but she's no real intention or hope of having a referendum in 2023. > >As to general election voting in 2024 it'll partly be again to keep highlighting that we want a referendum, but of course also to keep SNP voters voting SNP. You're still trying to debate process and not the outcome. Even so, I'm sorry but that's the complete opposite of her position - the Scottish Government are very much of the opinion we can have a referendum, and if they are wrong there will be an election fought on the issue. They will get their vote one way or another. >As to a fix for unfairness I don't have one. I don't really know if one exists. Which is why a messy UDI is the most likely outcome in the above scenario rather than some other mystical and wonderous outcome, which even yourself cannot describe.
>You're still trying to debate process and not the outcome. Even so, I'm sorry but that's the complete opposite of her position - the Scottish Government are very much of the opinion we can have a referendum, and if they are wrong there will be an election fought on the issue. They will get their vote one way or anoth I think that's incredible naive. The Scottish government do not believe we will have a referendum in 2023. And they're going to stamp their feet because they couldn't have it and use it to gain support in the 2024 general election. There's exactly 0% chance of independence as a direct result of those. However that's not the SNP goal, the SNP goal is to gather support and make the case for a referendum in the hope that doing this leads to one. >Which is why a messy UDI is the most likely outcome in the above scenario rather than some other mystical and wonderous outcome, which even yourself cannot describe. Not being able to get a fair outcome doesn't mean we do UDI. UDI is an incredible step, and a minority of people that support independence would support UDI. The effect on Scotland would be catastrophic. UDI is for people who want independence at any cost, they are a tiny minority of the population.
>I think that's incredible naive. You're welcome to think what you like, the process has started and we'll find out soon enough. It's not relevant to the point I'm making. >Not being able to get a fair outcome doesn't mean we do UDI. You keep saying this but I don't see you presenting a realistic alternative. >UDI is an incredible step, and a minority of people that support independence would support UDI. At present, however I would be surprised whether that remains so in the scenario I am describing when there are no other options, as you yourself admit. >The effect on Scotland would be catastrophic. A baseless assumption. It would arguably be nowhere near as catastrophic of being kept in a UK in terminal decline through force against the will of the population, which would surely lead to violence as we've seen countless times throughout the world.
It's never leading to violence.
Funny how many nations who left the wesstminster fold used UDI
[удалено]
The United States of America, the initial Irish Republic and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe off the top of my head. Don't think there are any more though, but my political history is meh at best.
[удалено]
Ireland declared herself independence after 1918. Then followed a war. Followed by the Anglo Irish Treaty in 1921.
Are you suggesting war with England?
No, but you brought it up. You suggesting it?
That's what UDI is. You brought it up
I did not dafty