The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

SNP commit to second indyref

Posted on January 12, 2016 by

Despite what you may have read in the newspapers at the weekend (and then in the Daily Record a day later), Scotland was today rocked by the news that the SNP’s manifesto for this May’s general election in fact DOES contain a commitment to a second independence referendum within the term of the coming Scottish Parliament.


Who says so? Why, it’s Oliver Mundell, son of the only Conservative MP in Scotland and the Scottish Tory candidate for the Holyrood seat of Dumfriesshire, in a leaflet hitting the doorsteps of constituents in the Borders today.

So, y’know, that must be true.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

96 to “SNP commit to second indyref”

  1. Hamish100 says:

    Well that’s that decided. Excitement over

  2. Steve Bowers says:

    Dear dear Ollie, carrying on dads good name

  3. Clootie says:

    …feeling a bit let down that Nicola called him before the party members 🙁

    I hope it’s true though 🙂

  4. Chic McGregor says:

    Hope that is true, or at least with the option.

    Maybe daddy has had a preview as SOSfS and accidentally let something slip??

  5. Muscleguy says:

    It’s obviously a project scaremonger thing they think will garner them votes but only from the 25% of Scots who do not expect Scotland to be independent in the next 10 years pollsters find. So, I don’t see it as a huge vote winner to try and get votes from opposing it.

  6. Lollysmum says:

    Think I’ll be waiting for an official announcement from SNP rather than accept the word of the son of the Tory Sec of State Mundell. If he’s anything like his father we’ll know exactly what to expect i.e the truth won’t form any part of his campaign for election.

  7. tartanpigsy says:

    Fud, son of Fud.

  8. Iain Hamilton says:

    Nicola Sturgeon has replied.

    She said “Did ye? Aye?”

  9. Dr Jim says:

    We know it’s made up but he’s probably correct in his madeupness

    Although he could have qualified it by saying that by that time Scotland will have gotten fed up of his dads pals Peeing all over the Fukcing top of us from a great height

  10. Wot does Dover House London England and its minions have to do with Scotland?.

  11. jimnarlene says:

    Tory makes shit up, to dissuade other Tories from voting for a party they weren’t going to vote for.

  12. Jack Murphy says:

    Oliver Mundell on Twitter:
    “Time To Build A Strong Unionist Alliance” [!!]
    Here we go again—Red and Blue Tories Bettertogether. 🙁

  13. Jock Scot says:

    I have just come to the conclusion, that I would prefer Independence,based solely on the fact that I need never endure the idea, that these people breathe and enter into my consciousness.

  14. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Given that Project Fear I helped put some 20% onto the proportion of voters who would vote for Independence, I suspect this, one of the first salvoes in Project Fear II will have something like the same effect.

    In that case, I think we will be home and hosed com Indyref2 – more so if Son of Fud and the rest of the Tory Gang keep shafting Scotland as they have started since the GE.

  15. Macart says:

    Wow, the dude is a precog. 😮

    Or he’s making stuff up.


  16. One_Scot says:

    The sooner we disinfect Scotland of these creeps the better.

  17. Iain says:

    What are the tiny rump of unionists going to moan about when we were are independent? I would guess just about everything.

  18. galamcennalath says:

    This might be cock up as much as conspiracy. On the other hand, it is looking as if the Tories are presenting themselves as THE party of Union. They may hope to persuade as many hard code BritNats as possible to vote for them.

    Makes sense from a Tory perspective. Aim to take residual Lab supporters who consider threats to their Union as a major issue.

  19. Ian Brotherhood says:

    ‘Oliver’ Mundell…Good God in Govan, there are more of them?

    Will this horror never end?

  20. Robert Louis says:

    The Viceroy general of Scotland and his son, both seem to struggle with the truth. It must be all that unfettered undemocratic power, which daddy has over the Scots. What could we call such a familial trait for these two Tory scoundrels? Liar Liar?

    If the power which daddy Mundell has over Scotland, despite his party being wholly unelectable in Scotland for at least 30 years, were on show in any other country, Westminster would denounce it as dictatorship. At the very best it is pure colonialism.

    Only one of all of Scotland’s MP’s is a tory, yet here we are in a so-called democracy, whereby that single MP rules over Scotland, dictating the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is an utter obscenity, and an affront to democracy. Seriously, is it not just time for the Scottish Parliament to literally TAKE the powers it was promised, and ignore the snivvelling wee tory clown?

    I just don’t know why the SNP are so awfully nice about this. It is a day by day insult to ALL Scotland. Their is a clear democratic mandate for those new powers in Smith, so the Scottish Government needs to get on with taking them, and stop waiting for the liars of Westminster, and their lapdug mundell to deliver their pretendy ‘new’ ‘powers’.

    In any other country, the Government would not stand for this abusive mis-rule nonsense by a single MP, Mundell, for one second.

  21. Colin says:

    All this unionist pushing of the past referendun being “a once in a lifetime”……was it not Alex Salmond who said that, not the SNP. And he also clarified it as ” and I am saying this is my own personal viewpoint”

  22. Derick fae Yell says:

    Mundell reproduced? That’s appalling news

  23. HandandShrimp says:

    To be fair to Oliver (I know, I know) as a Tory he probably has a feel for how disastrously the EU referendum is going to go and thereby trigger a second referendum.

    So he feels he is on safe ground saying there is going to be a second referendum


  24. Breastplate says:

    There should be an indyref in every single SNP manifesto.
    Scotland votes on said manifesto.
    Simple, democracy in action.

  25. scav says:

    This is tactical foot-shooting, albeit from someone we wouldn’t expect to know better, I suppose.

    Produce densely-worded leaflet with as much SNP Bad as will fit on a page. Most of it is vague, weasel-worded and smeary of course.

    As soon as the SNP bring out their manifesto, with no such referendum promise, ALL the vague claims on the same leaflet are discredited by that glaring falsehood.

    The thing about trying to start your election campaign before everyone else is, everyone else gets to choose their strategy after you commit yourself.

  26. Davy says:

    Okay own up yeh bastard, who allowed Mundell to breed.

  27. Robert Louis says:

    Here’s a dilemma. If, as expected England votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay, then votes to be independent (and thus be free of London Tory barsteward rule forever), Will Scotland refuse to ‘allow’ England to use the pound?

    Does David Cameron have a plan B?

  28. George Barr says:

    5 years . I want it next year get rid of these lying tory scum.

  29. galamcennalath says:

    HandandShrimp says:

    “… how disastrously the EU referendum is going to go and thereby trigger a second referendum …. there is going to be a second referendum”

    I share his optimism 🙂

  30. Robert Louis says:

    Colin at 346

    Alex Made the comment along the lines of “I personally think it will be a once in a generation thing’. It was his personal view. Neither the Scottish Government or the SNP have ever said the referendum was a once in a lifetime thing. Unionist spin, and all that.

  31. Author_Al says:

    @ Robert Louis
    “Only one of all of Scotland’s MP’s is a tory, yet here we are in a so-called democracy, whereby that single MP rules over Scotland, dictating the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is an utter obscenity, and an affront to democracy.”

    Very well said. My thoughts exactly.

  32. Robert Louis says:

    Breastplate at 354

    Totally agree. It would be to fall for a unionist trap to ommit it.

  33. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Ollie, hoiw deliciously appropriate.

    Does that make his pappy, Stan?

    Another fine mess…

  34. Capella says:

    I do hope he is right. Please let him be right!

    What joy there will be when the manifesto is published and the rest of us can read the magic words “there will be a referendum”, followed up probably by some qualifying idea such as “when the people of Scotland want one.”

    Ruthie is omnipresent. Ollie is prescient. What a talented bunch the Tories are. Or should that be STories?

  35. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Davy says:
    12 January, 2016 at 3:56 pm
    Okay own up yeh bastard, who allowed Mundell to breed.

    Remember, we only have his Mother’s word on that. Mind you he is showing early signs of being a chip off the old block.

  36. HandandShrimp says:


    I think the genes are strong with this one 🙂

    A Muddle if there ever was one.

  37. Lesley-Anne says:

    Good god! 🙂

    The JUNIOR Viceroy of Scotland is asking folks to DM him on Twitter if they want to help him deliver THAT S***E! 😀

    There is only one itsy bitsy teeny weent little problem with that tweet … his s***e is being delivered by Royal Mail!!!

    How do I know? 😉

    Well we recieved a copy of his s***e this morning WITH our mail! 🙂

    I have not yet been able to receive my full dose of anti Tory shiteamins so was only permited to pick up the garbage by the corner using my finger and thumb. Hell I’ve used MORE fingers to pick up a dirty nappy than I used to pick the Junior Viceroy’s s***e this morning!:D

  38. Helena Brown says:

    Sadly there seems to be a woman for nearly every man, has anyone seen young Mr Mundell and who does he take after?
    If he doesn’t mind I too will wait for the announcement from the SNP.
    What is it with these dynasties? We have the Blairs, the Straws, even the Martins and of course the Sarwars.

  39. Grouse Beater says:

    Is a Minnie Mundell a new teacake from Tunnocks? (Just askin’.)

  40. orri says:

    The answer to the question is kind of a blatant lie.

    For a start I wasn’t aware that Holyrood would be able to extend the tax bands or boost benefits and create new ones. If it did then it’d certainly be in a position where it could insure that increases in income tax wouldn’t negatively impact the lower paid in Scotland. It’d also be in a position to press ahead with any plans it had to replace local council funding with an income based solution.

    On the subject of being able to adjust tax rates it’s got one unexpected benefit. As part of an overall revenue raising scheme it might have a minimal effect on the majority of those actually living in Scotland. On the other hand it’d be hard to see anyone going out of their way to register as being resident here if it was going to cost them money. But it might tempt some to register out with Scotland.

    That being so it opens up the rather interesting and fair idea that if there is any popular mood for a second referendum that it should only be open to those with a scotish tax code. Shouldn’t be that hard to implement as HMRC have already done all the groundwork. Any paranoia about non residents lying about living in Scotland would be very much reduced by that.

  41. Lenny Hartley says:

    If the SNP do not have a commitment to a referendum in every Manifesto for the Scottish Elections then they are no longer the party of Independence and I for one will be ripping up my membership card.

    We are on the train to Indie and are nearing the end of the journey, no more than two stops to go.

  42. Breastplate says:

    Robert Louis, I also believe that the SNP may underestimate the support they have in Scotland that could lead to a poor decision on the wording in the manifesto about indyref2.

    They should make it crystal clear to everyone that their intentions are to have an independence referendum every time they are voted into power.

    As my representatives for the last 30 years or more I should expect no less, I’m sure there are many more who feel the same way.

  43. Bob Mack says:

    Does he have his fathers whiney nasal voice I wonder?.

    I cannot look at Mundell without seeing a” Spitting Image” caricature of the man. Oh wait,,it is actually him!!!!

  44. Andrew says:

    Has the son of the Viceroy been coached by Carmichael?

  45. Stuart A Blair says:

    I think he’s ok saying that isn’t he? After all, that’s only a political lie.

    We know they’re ok now. 😉

  46. Luigi says:

    This developing battle between the blue, red and yellow tories for the dwindling unionist vote looks like it is going to get nasty. Talk about ferrets in a sack. Popcorn ready. 🙂

    I look forward to the red tories’ response. Over to you Kez…….

  47. Paula Rose says:

    Talking of election leaflets – I got one through the post from the Ruth Davidson party.
    Unfortunately the printer details are illegible as the words are in white with a pale orange background.

  48. Bob Mack says:

    Is this Oliver Mundell who had to ask Ruth Davidson to speak to his dad ,to allow him to stand as a Tory candidate for Holyrood ,as his dad had said no.

    Ffs he is 26 years of age and still asking people to help him with his Dad.

    Bodes well for his future as a strong minded, decisive,and free thinking member of Holyrood. Snigger snigger.

  49. Kenny says:

    Please, people, remember: “softly, softly, catchee monkey”! Some sources even claim this phrase originated in Scotland.

    Just holding an indyref is pointless if we are going to end up with a result, say, of 49 YES 51% NO. The indyref must be the final constitutional step when it is clear Scotland has left the union…

    Why do people think indy will come following a YES vote? It will be the opposite! There will be a clear commitment from 60% of the population that we want OUT of the union — and the indyref will be held as a plebiscite to confirm this in constitutional terms (unlike the way we went in back in 1707, no plebiscite back then!).

    Remember your history. King James V on hearing of the birth of Mary, last queen of just Scotland (despite claim to English throne in her title): “It began with a lass and it will end with a lass.” Or what Mary herself said as she put her head on the block: “In my end is my beginning.”

    The union began with gambling debts (Darien scheme). So I think it will end with gambling debts.

    How? Osborne’s house-of-cards UKOK economy collapses (who knows, maybe as markets sense Scots leaving and taking their oil and all their exports). The economic collapse is the spur which leads to the break-up of the UKOK on its own… then we hold the indyref when opinion polls have been running around 60-63% for months.

    Can you imagine if we hold an indyref2 and some awful gaffe is made or goodness knows what (say some cataclysm in North England and people vote NO out of sympathy) and the result is still only 45% YES? Or less? No, the final indyref must be the END, not the PROCESS by which indy comes.

  50. Marco McGinty says:

    @Colin, @Robert Louis
    The “once in a generation” line was in Scotland’s Future, but to be honest, it doesn’t matter a jot what this worthless Mundell character says, because it all comes down to the definition of the word ‘generation’.

    Oxford Dictionaries has;
    “All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively”
    Cambridge Dictionaries has;
    “all the ?people of about the same ?age within a ?society or within a ?particular ?family”
    Macmillan Dictionary has;
    “a group of people in society who are born and live around the same time”
    Collins English Dictionary has;
    “all the people of approximately the same age, esp when considered as sharing certain attitudes, etc”
    The Free Dictionary has;
    “The people born and living about the same time, considered as a group”

    So, it could easily be argued that every single year produces a new generation, and certainly by the time of the next Indy referendum, even if it is 2025, a new generation of individuals will be part of the voting process.

    And let’s not forget those that came of age during the five-year span of World War 1. Were they not referred to as “The Lost Generation”?

  51. call me dave says:

    @Paula Rose

    Don’t all leaflets from the tories pale into insignificance? 🙂

  52. Marco McGinty says:

    And I forgot to mention of mobile technology. We’re now on 4G, which of course stands for fourth generation.

  53. Sunshine says:

    Davy 3.56 haha very good.
    As the old saying goes. Out of millions of sperm, why did he have to make it through first?

  54. Breastplate says:

    @Kenny, I don’t agree with this 60% nonsense.
    There is a clear line for democratic majorities, 50% + 1.
    That number is fine by me.

  55. Almannysbunnet says:

    The revelation that fluffy procreated has put me off my dinner. For those that wonder what he looks like, here’s a double helping to put you off yours.

  56. BJ says:

    I think I see Wee Fluffy in the background at Ollies wedding recently. Looks like his father.

  57. Andrew Haddow says:

    The Anglo-Irish Agreement defines a generation, as regards constitutional referendums, as 7 years.

  58. Colin Church says:

    Only slightly O/T as still in DnG.

    John Swinney handing Dr Murray her erse today during ministerial statement on flooding is really something to behold. One for the archive. It is about 20 minutes in on Scottish parliament tv archive.

    After addressing very measured and quietly, to both some Tory and Joan MacApline, Murray blunders in for a go and gets it with both barrels from John.

    Now bordering on man love for the guy.

    Really is worth a watch.

  59. mike cassidy says:

    How come I’ve no received ma leaflet fae Babe Ruth.

    Pure Fifeism so it is.

  60. Gary45% says:

    Ya beauty,
    Son of Fluffy raises his head above the parapet, bulls eye straight between the eyes.
    Dear god is this the quality of the future opposition crawling out from the Tory mire?
    Message to Fluffy,
    Buy your laddie a space hopper, and change his nappie.

  61. Chic McGregor says:

    “@Kenny, I don’t agree with this 60% nonsense.
    There is a clear line for democratic majorities, 50% + 1.
    That number is fine by me.”


    In the case of Montenegro, the EU very ill advisedly arbitrated a threshold of 55%.

    The actual result for independence was 55.5%, so it still passed.

    But imagine if it had been 0.5% on the wrong side of the threshold.

    You would have got 54.5% wanting independence but effectively being dictated to by the 45.5% who said no. I think that may have been an undemocratic recipe for trouble which was luckily avoided by a whisker the other way..

  62. Davy says:

    “Mike Cassidy”, Sorry but I recieved my Babe Ruth leaflet up here as well, in Moray.

    I must admit it does appear to be quite good quality paper/card and when put to its proper use should not scratch my earse to badly.

  63. Cuilean says:

    When speaking in the Commons, why does Mundell constantly gesticulate with both arms, resembling, for all the world, a baker stretching a large pizza base? Or is he miming how to successfully iron very long curtains?

  64. peekay says:

    Mcternan on Sky being described as a ‘Former’ Labour political strategist. Something we don’t know?

  65. velofello says:

    “Once in a generation”? Pah, so what? When circumstances change review/adjust your view accordingly.Just consider the changes – to Scotland’s disadvantage, since the 2014 referendum.

    Once the SNP are convinced that a substantial majority of Scots want independence, then Nicola Sturgeon should lead the SNP MPs walk out from Westminster. There can be no jiggery pokery with that action whereas another referendum… postal votes, missing boxes, fire alarms.

  66. MerkinScot says:

    FundellyMundelly Murpheyesque in importance before the manifesto is even finalised.

  67. Not Convinced says:

    Whilst the scenario of “UK as a whole votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay” is an entirely plausible scenario with, ahem, “constitutional implications” there’s another scenario that would also IMHO have interesting implications.

    Imagine if England votes to leave, but not all that strongly and Scotland (and probably Wales & N.Ireland too?) votes massively to stay to the extent that the UK stays in. Can you imagine the Daily Wail’s headline(s) in that event? 🙂

    The whole “EU referendum” is a very dangerous thing for the union I think. It’s entirely possible that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales could vote to stay, and still be dragged out against their will by England. This is unlikely to make the non-English parts of the union feel warm and fuzzy about it! Now I know there was never any chance of the Tories agreeing to the idea that it should require majorities in all 4 parts of the UK for an exit to occur, but “majorities in 3 out of the 4” should surely have been on the cards?

    Since Cameron allegedly wants the UK to stay in the EU anyway (and is only having the referendum to placate the Europhobic wing of the Tory party) you think he’d have agreed to that, justifying it on the grounds of “Moving towards a Federal UK”?

  68. Ken500 says:

    LIike father like son. Useless Roll on May 2016/17/18/19/20. The next Referendum.

  69. Chic McGregor says:

    For about the 6th time.

    If Brexit triggers an indyref2 we will lose it even if indy support is over 60%.

  70. Grouse Beater says:

    Marco McGinty: “The “once in a generation” line was in Scotland’s Future”

    Salmond has qualified his remark since making it.

    1. It is his view, not that of Scotland’s government.
    2. He meant a ‘political’ generation, that is, 5 years.

    I had thought 20 years when I first heard him say it. Red and blue Brit nationalists turned it into a 100 years. But we always knew they can’t count … on Scotland.

  71. robert graham says:

    surprised to learn fluffy had a child , and some poor woman had relations with this said child’s father , that resulted in son of fluffy offspring a funny thing nature isn’t it ,christ specsavers must have been shut that day , not in particularly good taste you say , oh dear what a shame , how sad ,frankly my dear i don’t give a damn

  72. tartanarse says:


    The Union did not start because of Darien. That is Establishment shite. Check out Scotlands’ Empire by Tom Devine. It’s all in there.

  73. Ghillie says:

    They are a sad and very frightened bunch.

    I won’t believe anything untill the SNP Manifesto is made public and anything said by any other party before then therefore has to be just their wishful thinking. Jings there’s a surprise.

    And when it comes, as come it will, we will be ready!

    SNP/SNP 🙂

  74. Jimbo says:

    Jeez, the possibility of two Mundells in Scottish politics doesn’t bear thinking of – Scotland is held back enough with the one we have just now.

  75. tarisgal says:

    velofello says:
    12 January, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    “Once in a generation”? Pah, so what? When circumstances change review/adjust your view accordingly.Just consider the changes – to Scotland’s disadvantage, since the 2014 referendum.

    I agree: Alec Salmond may have said that, but things change. He is not psychic (not to my knowledge anyway, so at risk of being wrong, I will run with the idea he isn’t) and so:

    1) he could not have foreseen such a tiny margin in which IndyRef was lost. He said on 14 Sept 2014 “this is a once in a generation opportunity’ – meaning (and I suspect though of course only he can say!) we may never get another opportunity. He did NOT say nor do I think he MEANT that he would not countenance another IndeyRef for a generation! He would have had no idea that the result would be so close that another IndyRed could be held again whenever the time was right. It is pure tory spin & logic that has turned that quote into a supposed ‘promise’!

    2) Alec Salmond could not have foreseen Indy supporters voting with such enthusiasm and determination that would last POST election! I don’t think ANYONE foresaw that that enthusiasm and determination would continue long after September 18th, particularly in view of the fact that ‘yes’ lost!

    3) Alec Salmond could not have foreseen such a resounding election victory of 56 out of 59 SNP Members being voted into the WM Parliament. As with #2 comment, it was not possible to envisage such a huge support system gathering force and showing WM how Scotland REALLY feels! He couldn’t have envisaged having that kind of support to make another IndyRef possible!

    4) Alec Salmond could not have foreseen such an (possibly) early EU referendum that could potentially force Scotland out of the EU against her will. Thus prompting the government to re-think the Independence issue, WHATEVER the early commitment by Alec was.

    5) Alec Salmond ALSO didn’t foresee Mundell becoming ‘to all intents and purposes’ First Minister of Scotland!! This idea that the only tory MP makes the decisions REGARDLESS of Scotland having democratically voted in the SNP and thus making Nicola Sturgeon First Minister, I’d say Alec Salmond would NEVER have uttered those words!!

    6) I WOULD say that Alec Salmond very much foresaw that the Scotland Bill was NEVER going to happen! And he did say as much (read: ‘… keep their feet to the fire’). And I suspect that he knew full well that the Smith Commission would come up with very little and any concessions in it would not make it to the Scotland Bill. But that was AFTER IndyRef and that damning ‘quote’ was already part of history as far as the tories were concerned, to be brought out at every opportunity. Fair dues, I guess any party uses what ammunition it has. And skewed the quote to suit themselves. HOWEVER, the actual words are there to shoot down those tories/whoever that use the skewed version.

    7) Alec Salmond is no longer in charge of Scotland and as such, the new FM, Nicola Sturgeon, has every right to determine her own policies and use her own assessment of public feeling in Scotland to determine IF and WHEN a new Independence Referendum will be called. That happens ALL THE TIME in a democratic society when a new government is elected and that new government feels policies put in place by the old government is no longer pertinent. It is not ‘lying’ or ‘refusing to act on a promise’ – it is democracy taking place, on behalf of a population that has changed its stance on a particular issue. See: immigration. Once, UK was GLAD to have emigrants come and join us and help with the various jobs which we didn’t have British people to fill, ie medicine (nursing, doctors etc.) NOW – many English just DON’T WANT TO KNOW our foreign workers. There is NOTHING NEW in policies changing and unionists are simply trying to turn it into pure spin!

    Yep, Velofello, I agree! Things change! IndyRef must be a ‘go’! At some point, but at the time of SCOTLAND’S choosing and not ‘by the leave’ of David Cameron.

    As regards having the ability to adjust taxes, what is the point of the SNP doing that? Smith Commission said that neither ‘side’ should lose out. Therefore, if raising taxes creates a little income to spend on, say… more mitigation, the other side will lose out and that will be taken off the grant block. Thus, any point in the exercise is superfluous to the exercise. Perhaps I haven’t gotten the new tax powers in the SB right in my head?

    And as for Fud Jr.!! Just don’t get me started!! I would say ONE THING – he may ‘be very much a carbon copy of his ‘father” but that could be purely ‘nurture’ as opposed to ‘nature’! I CANNOT believe Fud Sr had the wherewithal to attract a procreating ‘mate’! That is just TOTALLY outwith my comprehension! Ohhhh… head hurts just from THINKING of the ‘what could be…’ Oh dear God… that can only end badly… :-/

  76. Petra says:

    Mundell Jnr worked in the real World for 7 months after leaving school / Uni (couldn’t hack it?), then joined Dad (doing what?) and off to skivvy for someone at Westminster (for a short time). REALLY well qualified for standing in an election, eh? And from what we know he seems to have even less compassion than the (ab) normal Tory, Great! Just another gravy train rider.

    ”Once in a generation”. I wish they would cut this out. I don’t care who (singular person) said what and when. WE the people will decide and, imo, that should happen when polls consistently show around 60% and not before as we can’t afford to lose again.

    @ Chic McGregor says at 6:09 pm ”For about the 6th time. If Brexit triggers an indyref2 we will lose it even if indy support is over 60%.”

    I’ve noticed you mention that before Chic but don’t really understand what you mean. Are you referring to 60% of Scots voting to stay in the EU? That 60% voting to stay in the EU doesn’t necessarily mean that 60% of the Scottish electorate will want Independence?

  77. Marco McGinty says:

    @Not Convinced
    “The whole “EU referendum” is a very dangerous thing for the union I think. It’s entirely possible that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales could vote to stay, and still be dragged out against their will by England.”

    It is very possible. Let’s not forget that none of the Celtic nations voted for the Tories, but England ensured another Tory government for them.

  78. Robert Peffers says:

    @Bugger (the Panda) says: 12 January, 2016 at 4:07 pm:

    “Remember, we only have his Mother’s word on that. Mind you he is showing early signs of being a chip off the old block.”

    Well they do say Nurture may over rule Nature in certain circumstances.

  79. Marco McGinty says:

    @Grouse Beater
    Salmond has qualified his remark since making it.

    1. It is his view, not that of Scotland’s government.
    2. He meant a ‘political’ generation, that is, 5 years.

    The quote from Scotland’s Future goes “It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.”
    (It’s on page 556 for anyone interested)

    I believe we should be as honest as possible, so there’s no point in trying to attribute the comment to any one individual as part of a get out clause.

    However, I fully agree that it could have meant a political generation, and as I tried to explain earlier on, the word generation could easily be defined as any one single year.

    If this is the best argument the unionists can come up with, then they’re toast come May.

  80. Robert graham says:

    Re Indiy ref 2 and a trigger for another vote it won’t happen ,anyone who thinks Cameron & Co are going to allow the Scottish -Welsh -Irish tail to wag the English dug are deluded , in the run up to the vote on the EU ,stories will emerge in all the media drumiming up support for a majority of Brittish votes cast to be binding and to avoid England being overruled by the more insignificant parts of this United kingdom (ie) no breakdown on a regional or Country basis The Tories are in charge they will do what the f/k they like until stopped .

  81. gerry. parker says:

    A load of hot air from Mundell. When Nicola announces it the unionists are going to get hit with a campaign that will be built on all that has happened since 2014. We know our enemies now and how they operate.

    Got an email mail from 38 degrees asking me to support the BBC. I don’t think they will like my reply.

  82. Del says:

    News: Fluffy Mundell has a mini-me.

  83. Fred says:

    “Double yer Munnel!”

  84. Iain More says:

    So what spook agency told him?

  85. gerry parker says:

    Thatcher said there was no need for a referendum on independence. All we needed to do was send down a majority of Scottish MP’s who were in favour of Independence.

    They don’t trumpet that about do they?

  86. ArtyHetty says:


    I don’t get the 60% thing either, regards Chic McGregor’s comment.

  87. jim.watson says:

    Olly up for Branch Chair of the local Flat Earth Society? Looks like it.

  88. Chic McGregor says:

    No Petra. I mean that even if 60% of the electorate, as indicated in polling at the time, were in favour of independence, we would still lose an 1ndyref2 referendum if it is triggered by a Brexit result.

    The reason for that is because the issues of EU membership and independence are largely unconnected. There are significant percentages of both pro and anti EU folk amongst pro indy supporters as indeed there are amongst anti indy supporters.

    That means that a significant portion of pro indy support is anti EU.

    Upon a Brexit triggered referendum, you would be asking that large proportion of pro indy support but who are anti EU and who had just ‘won’ a referendum on the EU, to give up the certain result they had just celebrated winning.

    And note, that would be a certain result as opposed to a maybe. There is a strong element of ‘bird in the hand…’ in that scenario.

    Furthermore, the support intensity curve for the EU is different from that for indy. It is more skewed and more centre intense. Those in that large central swathe who are anti EU are, by dint of a largely hostile right wing media, quite well primed and psyched up about it, whereas those in the central swathe who are pro EU are merely ‘relaxed’ about it for the most part, soft EU.

    Contrast to the central swathe on indy, where those both plus and minus a sigma or thereabouts on that issue tend to be of the ‘relaxed’/’soft’ variety or if there is a skew, it is, again, because of media pummeling thatthe the antis will be more primed by the media than the pros.

    Referendums are not won by the highly motivated section of the electorate, they are won, unfortunately, by those in that large central swathe, who, for various reasons, rather than digging deep into the issues, rely mostly on what they are told by those who have.

    On Brexit you would, IMV, be trying to persuade softish/No/indy support who are also soft/Yes/EU to plump for indy (to keep EU membership) and hope that that countered those who are soft/Yes/indy and not-so-soft/No/EU (to get independence for Scotland), types which characterise the central swathe.

    In other words, I am personally certain that it would be much less likely that a central, soft YesIndy/not-so-soft NoEU voter would vote Yes in an indyref2 than a soft NoIndy/soft YesEU one would. And by quite a margin.

    It is a bit complex, I admit, and the EU ref campaign might yet astonish by raising awareness of the issues to the point where those on the plus EU side move from ‘relaxed’/’soft’ to ‘not-so-soft’ as well, which would help, but I fear not.

    Far better if we had indyref2 at another time and for another reason.

  89. Chic McGregor says:

    Got in a bit of a fankle there. Let me rwrite that last bit.

    ‘In other words, I am personally certain that it would be less likely that a central, soft YesIndy/not-so-soft NoEU voter would vote Yes in an indyref2 and less likely that a soft NoIndy/soft YesEU one would either. And by quite a margin.’

  90. Iain says:

    Interesting. I’ve never considered reproduction amongst mundells. I wonder what method they employ? One of the asexual processes, I expect: the alternative is too unlikely, and horrible to contemplate. Possibly binary fission, or budding.

  91. msean says:

    They seem to be afraid of another indyref,so give them one,but when the time is right. You have to have someething to make them stop and think.

    They won’t be able to spin their way to a no result when we face a decade of tory rule and a trail of sneers and broken vows since the indyref.

    This time,they will have to lie for themselves as other parties will think twice before joining with them or taking their money.

  92. Greannach says:

    Oliver? Very Kensington and Chelsea. Very sophisticated. Very suave and civilised.

    But surely the same effect could have been achieved by calling hhim Cedric, Marmaduke or Ethelred.

  93. Petra says:

    @ ArtyHetty says at 11:16 pm …Petra I don’t get the 60% thing either, regards Chic McGregor’s comment.”

    Glad to hear that ArtyHetty. I was beginning to think I was the only girl in the class wearing a pointy hat, lol.

    Thanks for clarifying the ‘brexit Indyref’ issue for me, and people like ArtyHetty, Chic.

    You say that ”Upon a Brexit triggered referendum, you would be asking that large proportion of pro indy support but who are anti EU and who had just ‘won’ a referendum on the EU, to give up the certain result they had just celebrated winning.”

    Chic this would mean that the pro-Indy, anti-EU group would still be part of the UK following the EU referendum and of course still ruled by Westminster.

    Which would matter more to them? That’s the dilemma that they face and the crux of the matter. Following a ‘win’ to pull out of the EU polling could be carried out, over a period of time, to identify the level of support in Scotland for Independence before thinking of holding another IndyRef.

    There is also the issue of the rUK locators many elderly and stalwart supporters of Westminster rule. 74% of them voted NO for Independence. This 300,000 plus group of people swung the Referendum vote as per people like Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp. He has stated that if they had been excluded from voting the result would have been ‘YES’.

    These people have chosen to stay in Scotland rather than England. Why? No doubt they want their cake and eat it however when push comes to shove how many of them are staunchly Pro-EU and would take the decision to vote for Independence rather than be pulled out of the EU?

    I reckon that whatever way the EU vote goes it will take some (a great deal of) time for the UK to ‘disengage’ from the rest of the EU. We’ll probably find that during that ‘exit’ time more information about the repercussions of such a measure will become more enlightening than during the lead up to the Referendum. People will begin to realise that the EU, warts and all, offered us some protection such as in relation to the Human Rights Act and Employment Law, from the draconian Westminster. They’ll also be the issue of loss of (even more) jobs.

    Polling could be carried out over a period of time and IndyRef2 called for when the time (and numbers) is right.

    Additionally when we get our Independence if we are unhappy about remaining part of the EU we could request full relevant data / statistics relative to Scotland and subsequently call for an in / out EU Referendum of our own. I reckon that this is what many pro-Indy but anti-EU (or sitting on the EU fence like myself) are banking on.

    Get rid of Westminster first and then make a decision with regard to the EU.

  94. proudscot says:

    This latest Mundell emergence onto the political scene proves the maxim “Just because some people can breed, doesn’t mean that they should!”

  95. Chic McGregor says:

    “Get rid of Westminster first and then make a decision with regard to the EU.”

    Been pushing that for a couple of decades at least.

    Unfortunately Cameron stole the march on that one during indyref1.

    We might have won indyref1 had the SNP adopted a deferral policy.

    BTW, I personally am pro EU.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top