Scottish independence

L1011

View wrote: »

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.

Labour face never being in Government again if Scotland leaves and FPTP is retained; so they may trade short term benefit for medium term survival.

A Dub in Glasgo

L1011 wrote: »

Labour face never being in Government again if Scotland leaves and FPTP is retained; so they may trade short term benefit for medium term survival.

It has not really mattered what Labour do in Scotland if they do not win big in England. Scotland cannot be held hostage just so Labour can get a sniff of power in England

L1011

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It has not really mattered what Labour do in Scotland if they do not win big in England. Scotland cannot be held hostage just so Labour can get a sniff of power in England

I wasn't suggesting that; I was suggesting that could lead to them supporting PR in England.

An OK performance in England/Wales plus a C&S deal with the SNP is likely their only path to power currently, though.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

Labour face never being in Government again if Scotland leaves and FPTP is retained; so they may trade short term benefit for medium term survival.

They face that whether Scotland leaves or not.

Currently they are two separate parties joined in an unhappy marriage that cannot separate because they both lose too much apart but staying together does not work because they fight too much.

Labour has two wings - the Loony Left and the Unions - but with two wings you might think they could learn to fly - but no, they just flap. They are deadly enemies.

Multi seat STV might allow a better result for them.

A Dub in Glasgo

L1011 wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that; I was suggesting that could lead to them supporting PR in England.

An OK performance in England/Wales plus a C&S deal with the SNP is likely their only path to power currently, though.

The LP have not yet got it into their head that things are not going back to the way it was in Scotland. Keir Starmer was interviewed today and stated he thought Richard Leonard can be First Minister of Scotland - this is so out of touch with reality it is embarrassing for Starmer

I cannot believe that the LP are actually endorsing the Tory strategy of saying No irrespective of how the people in Scotland vote - that is not sustainable for them at all

ancapailldorcha

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What else are they to do though? They need votes. Traditionally, Scotland was a stronghold for them. Now that this is not the case, they must come from elsewhere. I'd like the Scots to get another referendum but nobody wants to preside over the breakup of the United Kingdom.

A Dub in Glasgo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

but nobody wants to preside over the breakup of the United Kingdom.

I don't see why not if that is what one of the constituient parts want?

ancapailldorcha

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I don't see why not if that is what one of the constituient parts want?

Right but it's clearly not what the Conservatives want and they only granted the 2014 referendum because they were confident of winning it.

eire4

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but it's clearly not what the Conservatives want and they only granted the 2014 referendum because they were confident of winning it.

Very true. But their intransigence is only increasing the independence vote. I know May is a long way off but especially if January 1 rolls around and their is no deal with the EU I can see even in PR voting the SNP having a resounding victory at the Scottish Assembly elections and support at that point for independence being maybe even up in the mid 60's. You reach those kinds of points and the horse will firmly be out of the barn and London continuing to say no will just lead to a copper fastening of a belief in independence in Scotland.

ancapailldorcha

eire4 wrote: »

Very true. But their intransigence is only increasing the independence vote. I know May is a long way off but especially if January 1 rolls around and their is no deal with the EU I can see even in PR voting the SNP having a resounding victory at the Scottish Assembly elections and support at that point for independence being maybe even up in the mid 60's. You reach those kinds of points and the horse will firmly be out of the barn and London continuing to say no will just lead to a copper fastening of a belief in independence in Scotland.

They still need Westminster to grant the referendum though, even if the SNP take 100% of the seats in Holyrood.

As I said above, I want them to have another referendum but I don't see it happening in the near future.

A Dub in Glasgo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They still need Westminster to grant the referendum though, even if the SNP take 100% of the seats in Holyrood.

That is not established in law yet

https://twitter.com/PeoplesAS30/status/1295371546144505856

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is not established in law yet

https://twitter.com/PeoplesAS30/status/1295371546144505856

Where are we up to with that case?

bob mcbob

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They still need Westminster to grant the referendum though, even if the SNP take 100% of the seats in Holyrood.

As I said above, I want them to have another referendum but I don't see it happening in the near future.

I believe that there are going to be major changes across the whole of the UK (including England) when Covid and Brexit are over.

Looking at England - do you think that the Northern mayors are going to go back into their box after seeing how useless Westminster has been with Covid?

I don't think so, they will not be asking for devolution of power, they will be demanding it.

Scotland could be the least of their problems.

Water John

bob mcbob wrote: »

I believe that there are going to be major changes across the whole of the UK (including England) when Covid and Brexit are over.

Looking at England - do you think that the Northern mayors are going to go back into their box after seeing how useless Westminster has been with Covid?

I don't think so, they will not be asking for devolution of power, they will be demanding it.

Scotland could be the least of their problems.

The United States of the Kingdom?

View

L1011 wrote: »

Labour face never being in Government again if Scotland leaves and FPTP is retained; so they may trade short term benefit for medium term survival.

Possibly but the assumption is Labour is that if they wait long enough, the electorate will give them their turn. Hence they prefer to opt to wait and get the chance at unlimited power (as a majority), rather than opt for a fairer voting system in which their power would be limited (as they’d end up in a coalition).

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

Possibly but the assumption is Labour is that if they wait long enough, the electorate will give them their turn. Hence they prefer to opt to wait and get the chance at unlimited power (as a majority), rather than opt for a fairer voting system in which their power would be limited (as they’d end up in a coalition).

But Labour are already a coalition between the Left Wing and the Trade Unions. With a STV type system it would not help them unless they had multi seat constituencies. Would left wing voters support a TU candidate or the other way?

Joe_ Public

Sam Russell wrote: »

But Labour are already a coalition between the Left Wing and the Trade Unions. With a STV type system it would not help them unless they had multi seat constituencies. Would left wing voters support a TU candidate or the other way?

Labours a coalition alright, same as the tories and probably any similar mass party in a democratic society. Coalition is between left and centre right, though, and pretty much now they are creating some tension with the Unions so it's hard to say where that might lead. Anyway, labour won't be forming any government without the snp anytime soon so how they approach that conundrum both before and after an election is another unknown.

A Dub in Glasgo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Where are we up to with that case?

A rather long update from earlier this month

https://thehub.scot/@Vanitarium/status/221490

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

But Labour are already a coalition between the Left Wing and the Trade Unions. With a STV type system it would not help them unless they had multi seat constituencies. Would left wing voters support a TU candidate or the other way?

It is indeed but under FPTP it doesn’t have to compromise with any external party, rather any compromises are purely internal ones. And those internal compromises can be implemented in full should they secure a majority.

It also shouldn’t be forgotten that Labour, together with the Conservatives, are guaranteed hundreds of “safe” seats under FPTP. Why would they abandon such a built-in privilege because of something as nebulous as “fairness”?

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

It is indeed but under FPTP it doesn’t have to compromise with any external party, rather any compromises are purely internal ones. And those internal compromises can be implemented in full should they secure a majority.

It also shouldn’t be forgotten that Labour, together with the Conservatives, are guaranteed hundreds of “safe” seats under FPTP. Why would they abandon such a built-in privilege because of something as nebulous as “fairness”?

While Labour had 40 or so seats in Scotland, why indeed.

However, losing those seats to the SNP hands the Tories a built in advantage that STV might unlock. There are many seats that the Tories always win, but not by a majority of the vote.

Why would working class voters vote Tory? Is it because they feel posh, or in the mistaken idea that the Tories are their betters and will look after their interests? Surely not.

There are more working class voters than Tories and business owners, and Tories etc. look after the interests of the Tories etc. Labour would need to be clear on the idea that they fight for the interests of workers and the poor and under-privileged. Get that front and centre of their message such that no-one who considers that point of view as a central value would ever dream of voting other than Labour.

Labour need to stop in-fighting over relatively small issues like the old fights about nationalisation and concentrate the party on a single message, and stick with that message. Look at the SNP - their message is simplicity itself - an independent Scotland.

Mr.Nice Guy

Gordon Brown in The Guardian today calling for a new way to run the UK:

Johnson has yet to understand that it will soon be impossible to hold together our multinational UK of distinctive nations and regions within the straitjacket of a centralised state. There can be no unity without diversity, and no national integration without inclusion.

That is why I believe that the minute the immediate crisis is over, the UK needs to be rethought and rebooted – starting with a convention engaging all nations and regions and built out of local citizens’ assemblies to discuss how, through joint working and the sharing of power, we manage practical challenges like disease control, social care, regeneration and employment.

I believe the solution, if there is to be one, will start from Scotland. Here, there are daily Scotland-UK disputes over who does what, and Scotland has the most experience of the tension between different levels of government and of the struggle to find a balance between the local autonomy people desire and the cross-border cooperation that we need. Youth unemployment is, indeed, illustrative of the problem: neither the UK nor the Scottish government can tackle youth unemployment on its own; yet, unable to find a way of cooperating, each has separate schemes and, in the confusion, the young unemployed suffer.

With one foot now out of the door of the UK, Scotland has also to think more deeply about whether it really wants to give up on all forms of cooperation within these islands – 58% of Scots say they want separation from the UK, but a far bigger majority – 75% – say they want cooperation within it. And if constitutional options for better joint working and the sharing of power were brought forward, the many Scots who, out of frustration, now say they want to go it alone, may discover they have much more common cause with Wales, the north and the Midlands than any “us versus them” nationalist alternative.

But devolution will not bring unity unless each region and nation’s voice can also be represented at the centre of UK government. Most of all, we need to understand that the enduring unity of our country depends not on a nostalgic deference to ancient institutions that are not working but on forging a new story about what it is to be British.

The millions who clapped every Thursday in support of our NHS created one shining moment when a whole country stood together, united not just around our common experiences of Covid but around values we share in common: values of empathy and solidarity with each other. If we want to build on that spirit, re-emerge as a united country and solve health and employment crises, then it is time to agree a new way to govern ourselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/18/we-need-a-new-way-to-run-a-truly-united-kingdom-gordon-brown

I think the problem with these sentiments is that they may have been appropriate after 2014 and before the Brexit referendum but the UK is almost unrecognisable now.

I also find his last paragraph rather hollow, talking about the clapping for the NHS. Many of the doctors and nurses are from overseas and this Tory government has shown a shocking level of contempt towards immigrants.

Ironically, I think the values that Brown believes in can only be seen again in an independent Scotland.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Better Together campaign wheeled out Brown just before the 2014 referendum for him to declare that Scotland would get substantial new powers and Federalism should they vote No

The people in Scotland have learned to ignore what Brown says

Sam Russell

Taking Brown's statements at face value, he appears to suggest a federal structure where the UK is setup with Scotland NI and Wales with Assemblies, and England divided into regions - each region having the same powers as the aforementioned Assemblies. These regions would have populations similar to Scotland and would remove the English dominance which would be a positive move.

A lot of power would need to be devolved to dent the Scottish Nationalist momentum and it is probably too late for that anyway. The Scots will look at the result of the increase in devolved power promised by Brown and Cameron following the IndyRef, and say 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'.

They will not fall for it a second time. IndyRef2 will be fought on emotion and national pride, not the price of oil, or control of the fisheries.

Hawkeye9212

Sam Russell wrote: »

Taking Brown's statements at face value, he appears to suggest a federal structure where the UK is setup with Scotland NI and Wales with Assemblies, and England divided into regions - each region having the same powers as the aforementioned Assemblies. These regions would have populations similar to Scotland and would remove the English dominance which would be a positive move.

A lot of power would need to be devolved to dent the Scottish Nationalist momentum and it is probably too late for that anyway. The Scots will look at the result of the increase in devolved power promised by Brown and Cameron following the IndyRef, and say 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'.

They will not fall for it a second time. IndyRef2 will be fought on emotion and national pride, not the price of oil, or control of the fisheries.

English people don't support regional parliaments. North or South, they're still English.

Sam Russell

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

English people don't support regional parliaments. North or South, they're still English.

Have they ever been asked as a nation in a meaningful referendum? They did ask one region in a poorly run but that hardly counts.

They would be sold as enhanced Councils that have control of all those things the Westminster makes a mess of - like health, education, police, roads, etc. etc.

Water John

A lot of what is proposed, has the whiff of, too little too late. London gives up its power grudgingly. The North of England certainly see themselves as different and mostly left behind.
Action should have followed the first Indy Ref.

A Dub in Glasgo

Brown is a washout and he could have done something tanible about it when he was part of the UK cabinet all those years ago

https://twitter.com/3rdTimeLucky3/status/1317906921496731648

4068ac1elhodqr

Brown sold 1/2 of their gold reserves at 20yr record low prices, before it peaked, and is just re-peaking this month (after 10yrs) at $2k or so.

aka "the single worst investment of modern times"

Cost them billions, well around £14bn lost by today money.
What a total buffoon.

Hawkeye9212

Sam Russell wrote: »

Have they ever been asked as a nation in a meaningful referendum? They did ask one region in a poorly run but that hardly counts.

They would be sold as enhanced Councils that have control of all those things the Westminster makes a mess of - like health, education, police, roads, etc. etc.

Enhanced councils are already being created in the form of combined authorities. England overall still needs its own parliament to oversee these authorities.

Capt'n Midnight

Harvey Quick Typo wrote: »

Brown sold 1/2 of their gold reserves at 20yr record low prices, before it peaked, and is just re-peaking this month (after 10yrs) at $2k or so.

aka "the single worst investment of modern times"

Cost them billions, well around £14bn lost by today money.
What a total buffoon.

Peanuts compared to the £200Bn wasted so far on Brexit even though it's still business as usual.