Scottish independence

Mr.Nice Guy

More encouraging news for those that are pro-independence:

https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1315243967617929220


This follows a recent Savanta ComRes poll with 53% in favour of independence. There have been several such results now in these polls. A Survation poll also shows 56% of Scots believe a majority of pro-independence candidates returned at the Holyrood elections next year should be a mandate for another referendum.

Hard to see how Johnson and the Tories can keep rebuffing another one in light of this. I wonder though does Johnson care less about Scotland leaving and more about not being the PM who presides over it happening, in which case he'll just reject it out of his own self-interest?

eire4

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

More encouraging news for those that are pro-independence:

https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1315243967617929220


This follows a recent Savanta ComRes poll with 53% in favour of independence. There have been several such results now in these polls. A Survation poll also shows 56% of Scots believe a majority of pro-independence candidates returned at the Holyrood elections next year should be a mandate for another referendum.

Hard to see how Johnson and the Tories can keep rebuffing another one in light of this. I wonder though does Johnson care less about Scotland leaving and more about not being the PM who presides over it happening, in which case he'll just reject it out of his own self-interest?

I tend to think you on the money with that last observation. But that approach will IMHO only further increase support for independence and probably push it past the 60% mark from where it seems to be now about 55%.

Water John

I do see 60% as a super majority and no question that triggers in anyone's mind an Indy Ref with very high odds it would pass. That bar may even be too high and anything approaching it should be enough.

cameramonkey

In Ireland in the 1918 election about 68% of the vote was cast for nationalist candidates. SF got aboout 47% and the IPP got about 22%. If you look at the 26 counties then there must have been an overwhelming vote for nationalist candidates upwards of 90% in most consistences. The danger for Scotland is having a large and unhappy Unionist rump if there is a vote for independence. Has a study been done on those who are not Scottish and voted to remain in the UK, is there a large English resident Unionist vote?

eire4

cameramonkey wrote: »

In Ireland in the 1918 election about 68% of the vote was cast for nationalist candidates. SF got aboout 47% and the IPP got about 22%. If you look at the 26 counties then there must have been an overwhelming vote for nationalist candidates upwards of 90% in most consistences. The danger for Scotland is having a large and unhappy Unionist rump if there is a vote for independence. Has a study been done on those who are not Scottish and voted to remain in the UK, is there a large English resident Unionist vote?

I think the difference here is economically it is going to be very clear the UK outside the EU is worse off economically and Scotland out of the UK and back into the EU is going to be much better off. Sure there will be naysayers but I think the idiocy of the English driven brexit changes the paradigm.

L1011

FPTP prevented there being any significant number of Unionists elected in what became ROI - just one outside the University constituencies - but if there'd been STV there would have almost certainly been a Unionist elected in Monaghan as well as more in South Dublin than the one that was returned. And that's at the very least.

There were areas with non-negligible Protestant populations that didn't have a Unionist candidate so ended up with SF vs IPP races, or just SF; but in a larger STV constituency could easily have returned a single Unionist also - Cork for instance. Remember that in the 6 seat days there was a single Unionist MLA in West Belfast!

If Scotland retains its hybrid system they could easily end up with close to no Unionists in their FPTP section but plenty via the regional seats.

BonnieSituation

cameramonkey wrote: »

In Ireland in the 1918 election about 68% of the vote was cast for nationalist candidates. SF got aboout 47% and the IPP got about 22%. If you look at the 26 counties then there must have been an overwhelming vote for nationalist candidates upwards of 90% in most consistences. The danger for Scotland is having a large and unhappy Unionist rump if there is a vote for independence. Has a study been done on those who are not Scottish and voted to remain in the UK, is there a large English resident Unionist vote?

I suppose for those Unionists partition could be an answer.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I suppose for those Unionists partition could be an answer.

Yea, Hadrian's Wall.*



*I do of course mean the southern border - not sure about Berwick on Tweed.

listermint

Latest surveys show 58% support for independence. Movement is growing.

pixelburp

listermint wrote: »

Latest surveys show 58% support for independence. Movement is growing.

Which surveys are these? I was only going to say the other day that the numbers seemed to have stalled around the 53, 54% but if the above is from reputable sources it certainly changes things by closing in on the magic 2/3s majority...

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1316333444654301184

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1316351301521944579

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1316333444654301184

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1316351301521944579

The younger numbers make this all pretty much a matter of when not if. Especially given the only majority no age group is 65 plus. I think the key number in the more immediate term is breaking 60% yes. Once that is done I think you can be pretty confident of winning the referendum.

cameramonkey

L1011 wrote: »

FPTP prevented there being any significant number of Unionists elected in what became ROI - just one outside the University constituencies - but if there'd been STV there would have almost certainly been a Unionist elected in Monaghan as well as more in South Dublin than the one that was returned. And that's at the very least.

There were areas with non-negligible Protestant populations that didn't have a Unionist candidate so ended up with SF vs IPP races, or just SF; but in a larger STV constituency could easily have returned a single Unionist also - Cork for instance. Remember that in the 6 seat days there was a single Unionist MLA in West Belfast!

If Scotland retains its hybrid system they could easily end up with close to no Unionists in their FPTP section but plenty via the regional seats.

FPTP was the system that was decided by the UK, Irish people had little choice but to go along with that.The SF vote was 46.9% but they only ran in 48 seats the other 25 seats that they won were not contest because they were Sinn Féin strongholds. So in reality the SF vote should have far exceeded 50% with the broader nationalist vote upwards of 70%. STV may have saved a few unionist seats but it would not have saved the union.



If the Scots start seeing upwards of 60% in polls and with the younger demographic overwhelmingly pro independence I think we can all see the writing on the wall.


British nationalist are not really that interested in placating Scottish people, they would prefer if the Scots behaved themselves and didn't cause trouble. At this stage anything Westminster does either by design or by mistake pushes more people towards independence.

Mr.Nice Guy

It's heading towards 60% faster than I expected. When the transition period ends and the reality of Brexit bites, that might be worth a few more points in favour.

Westminster continues to dig in their heels:

https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1316372781672562691

The more they reiterate this stance the more they hurt their own cause, surely. At some point they have to face this down.

eire4

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's heading towards 60% faster than I expected. When the transition period ends and the reality of Brexit bites, that might be worth a few more points in favour.

Westminster continues to dig in their heels:

https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1316372781672562691

The more they reiterate this stance the more they hurt their own cause, surely. At some point they have to face this down.

This intransigent stance and the reality of brexit come January 1 should lead to a strong showing for the SNP come next May and by then I could easily see support for independence passing that 60% mark.

serfboard

I know it's a report in The National, but still ...

The National wrote:

Almost six in ten Scots would now back independence in a referendum, a new poll shows.

Ipsos-Mori found 58% of those likely to vote in such a ballot would choose Yes.
...
The findings come from research carried out by Ipsos MORI’s Scottish Political Monitor, run in partnership with STV News and mark the highest level of public support for constitutional change ever recorded.

And as for the arguments:

The National wrote:

the two "most convincing" for change relate to Scotland and England wanting different political futures and a lack of trust in Westminster to act in Scotland’s interests.

On the other hand, those most persuasive on the No side are linked to emotional appeal about commonality and the perceived risk of independence to jobs and the economy.

When looking at demographics, the number of over 65s against independence should not be underestimated. These are the age cohort most likely to vote and most likely to feel threatened by the economic risks of independence (specifically, their pensions).

The frighteners were put on them the last time, and if there was to be a IndeyRef2, the same thing would be done again.

And the only way I see an IndyRef2 happening is if the SNP hold the balance of power following the next UK election (whenever that is).

pixelburp

Realistically, what can Westminster do here to arrest support? The Irish question wasn't exactly stellar so beyond that has it ever had to deal with a peaceful separatist movement? In many ways it's a distinctly modern ideology. Beyond promising more devolution powers, I can't imagine what argument could be made to halt the demographics increasingly yearning for self determination -, especially if the economy starts to falter post CoVid and Brexit. London focusing on English stagnancy above its agitating northern neighbour

A Dub in Glasgo

serfboard wrote: »

When looking at demographics, the number of over 65s against independence should not be underestimated. These are the age cohort most likely to vote and most likely to feel threatened by the economic risks of independence (specifically, their pensions).

The frighteners were put on them the last time, and if there was to be a IndeyRef2, the same thing would be done again.

And the only way I see an IndyRef2 happening is if the SNP hold the balance of power following the next UK election (whenever that is).

I was surprised the over 65s polled as high as 40% tbf - that is a great position to work on

A Dub in Glasgo

pixelburp wrote: »

Realistically, what can Westminster do here to arrest support? The Irish question wasn't exactly stellar so beyond that has it ever had to deal with a peaceful separatist movement? In many ways it's a distinctly modern ideology. Beyond promising more devolution powers, I can't imagine what argument could be made to halt the demographics increasingly yearning for self determination -, especially if the economy starts to falter post CoVid and Brexit. London focusing on English stagnancy above its agitating northern neighbour

The one thing they could have done which would have killed the independence movement in Scotland after the defeat in 2014 was act on their words - treat Scotland as if it was in a unioin rather than a possession. Brexit was the tipping point which showed a lot of people in Scotland that their voice means nothing

From here on in, things have gone so far to go back to what the people in Scotland were promised so I think they can do very little other than dirty tricks and fear mongering

Water John

If Starmer becomes PM he will have to resolve it in some way, irrespective of whether he requires the SNP MP votes.

Mr.Nice Guy

Starmer's in a really awkward position as those numbers creep up. There was a poll at the end of September that showed 36% of those who voted Labour in 2019 now favour independence.

I'm not sure what he can do. If he matches the Tories in the run-up to the Holyrood elections saying that there should be no further referendum no matter what, then he likely loses more support in Scotland; alternatively, if he offers a more conciliatory tone than Johnson towards a second referendum, then the Tories seize on that and say he's Sturgeon's puppet. Knowing the Tories, they would probably try to use such an approach to say it is Labour that has endangered the Union. He's between a rock and a hard place. Not to mention in the event of an independent Scotland, it becomes harder to oust the Tories in Westminster.

Water John

It might be late but he could float the option of a union of four countries, thus England having its own legislative House. He may have the confidence to believe that Lb under him would have a majority in such a House.

Imreoir2

pixelburp wrote: »

Realistically, what can Westminster do here to arrest support? The Irish question wasn't exactly stellar so beyond that has it ever had to deal with a peaceful separatist movement? In many ways it's a distinctly modern ideology. Beyond promising more devolution powers, I can't imagine what argument could be made to halt the demographics increasingly yearning for self determination -, especially if the economy starts to falter post CoVid and Brexit. London focusing on English stagnancy above its agitating northern neighbour

What can Scotland do if a majority of MPs in Westminister decide they don't care what Scotland thinks, or what mandate the SNP has, and simply refuses to allow a referendum take place.

It would risk provoking a UDI, but independence is a much risker propect in that situation.

Peregrinus

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Starmer's in a really awkward position as those numbers creep up. There was a poll at the end of September that showed 36% of those who voted Labour in 2019 now favour independence.

I'm not sure what he can do. If he matches the Tories in the run-up to the Holyrood elections saying that there should be no further referendum no matter what, then he likely loses more support in Scotland; alternatively, if he offers a more conciliatory tone than Johnson towards a second referendum, then the Tories seize on that and say he's Sturgeon's puppet. Knowing the Tories, they would probably try to use such an approach to say it is Labour that has endangered the Union. He's between a rock and a hard place. Not to mention in the event of an independent Scotland, it becomes harder to oust the Tories in Westminster.

Starmer's best course - and it's not risk free - is to adopt the position that he's strongly in favour of the union, but that it must be a union based on consent, not a union based on ignoring Scottish view and suppressing the expression of Scottish wishes. Therefore, if pro-referendum parties win a majority in the Scottish elections, there should be a referendum. And in that referendum Labour will campaign for the union, urging the view that to be anti-Tory is not to be anti-union, and that if Scotland votes to leave the union because of (justified) disgust at the Tory government they will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, at considerable cost to themselves. Cue discussion of the economic consequences of Scottiish independence which, in the short and medium terms, are undoubtedly painful. Cue also repeated comparisons between independence campaigners who deny this pain and Leave campaigners who promised 350 mill/wk for the NHS.

The risk, of course, is that the indy side would win the referendum, but that's not a given. And the risk of not allowing a referendum when Scotland clearly wants one is a huge loss of poltical legitimacy for Westminster rule in Scotland, and Scottish independence becoming the persistentily toxic issue that will poison UK politics in the way that Brexit has done over the past few years.

Hermy

Have there been any recent polls on the English attitude to Scotland's potential bid for independence and on their union generally?

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

Have there been any recent polls on the English attitude to Scotland's potential bid for independence and on their union generally?

English views on Scottish independence haven't been polled in the same regular and systematic way that Scottish views have. But, as one data point, here's a report of a relevant poll from Lord Ashcroft Polls. Health warning: it was a year ago. There may be more recent polls available if you google. But, in this poll, for what it's worth:

43% of English voters think Scotland should stay in the UK.
41% think it's a matter for the people of Scotland to decide.
8% think Scotland should no longer be part of the UK.
8% don't know.

serfboard

Peregrinus wrote: »

Cue discussion of the economic consequences of Scottiish independence which, in the short and medium terms, are undoubtedly painful.

As you correctly point out, independence is not an economic argument - at least not in the short term.

However, the SNP would be wise to point out that the immediate economic situation would not be disastrous, with the details needing to be thrashed out in settlement discussions, which would take a considerable period of time (AKA a transition period), and with the possibility of joining the EU further down the line.

To me, Covid has demonstrated to the Scots that the English don't give a sh1t about them, and would throw them under a bus should the situation dictate it, and the sooner that they are independent, the better.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of Unionists in Scotland (as well as lots of English people who live there). However, we also had plenty of Unionists south of the border after independence, and no-one from that lineage wants to rejoin the UK now.

Hawkeye9212

Water John wrote: »

It might be late but he could float the option of a union of four countries, thus England having its own legislative House. He may have the confidence to believe that Lb under him would have a majority in such a House.

English legislature, max devo, and electoral reform to get the Lib Dems on side.

Peregrinus

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

English legislature, max devo, and electoral reform to get the Lib Dems on side.

And not just to plese the Lib Dems!

Looking at every General Election since 1918 - that's a total of 28 GEs and taking the results for England only:

- Labour have got more votes the Tories on only 6 occasions (most recently in 2001), and have never secured more than 50% of the vote.

- Tories have secured more votes that Labour on 22 occasions, but have secured more than 50% of the vote on only 3 occasions (most recently in 1959).

So, assuming those voting patterns hold up in England-only parliamentary elections

- under FPTP the Tories would nearly always win the most seats, and would likely nearly always be in a position to form a single-party government; but

- under a strict proportional system, the Tories would rarely be in a position to form a single-party government, and most governments would be formed by inter-party arrangements.

Obviously Labour would be much better off in the latter situation, so it's in Labour's interests to support PR for any English parliament.

it doesn't necessarily follow that they would support it for the Westminister parliament, but I think once they (and other parties) develop the experience and skills for working successfully in a PR environment, and once the voters become used to the degree of responsiveness which characterises such an environment, the path to PR in Westminster would be open.

View

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

English legislature, max devo, and electoral reform to get the Lib Dems on side.

Neither of the two major parties are going to offer electoral reform. They both benefit massively from the current electoral system and have no reason to upend their mutual “tweedledum and tweedledee” act and lose the privileges they get from it.