Scottish independence

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

The few Glaswegian nationalists I know? Yes, they're perfectly capable of rationalising the difference.

Maybe they could register here and educate the locals!

pixelburp wrote: »

Any independence movement is going to lean into emotional, nationalistic arguments - because obviously, it will. Good luck finding any movement towards self-determination that doesn't at least pivot against the nominal "masters". Otherwise, why break away from them at all if there isn't dissatisfaction towards the existing power structure? You seem suggestive to your own failure to give Scots the benefit of the doubt they're not all agitated Jocks, hopped up on Iron Bru, simply out for a bit of "blame London".

and to get your point across you decided to resort to a bit of stereotyping.

"If you don't agree with me, then you must think this".

Bravo.

pixelburp

Aegir wrote: »

Maybe they could register here and educate the locals!

and to get your point across you decided to resort to a bit of stereotyping.

"If you don't agree with me, then you must think this".

Bravo.

Wait now. You yourself cast the first stone here, doubting nationalists en-masse could split the difference between Anglophobia and criticism of Westminster (if you meant differently, then enlighten); then threw another generalisation that posters here couldn't rationalise the difference either.

So, you can spare the Sealion defence you're better than that: if your perspective of antagonism in the independence movement is different, then I'm keen to learn. Cos on the face of it, YOU fired the first generalisation, not me, so if my glibness offends, then enlighten instead of high-horse sarcasm

Scotland is a deeply nuanced situation, where bringing the still ~40% of the population floating between pragmatic, to sceptic, to unionist into independence, without violence or resistance will be tricky - but I also see no evidence of a repetition of (say) Ireland's history either. The nationalist movement appears eager, but also streetwise and canny to the realism of the situation (nor backed by the media which AFAIK remains neutral at best). Brexit has probably thrown a grenade into the timeline, but also a wakeup call about the limits of a devolved government at this stage. None of this speaks to a resting anglophobia however.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Wait now. You yourself cast the first stone here, doubting nationalists en-masse could split the difference between Anglophobia and criticism of Westminster (if you meant differently, then enlighten); then threw another generalisation that posters here couldn't rationalise the difference either.

So, you can spare the Sealion defence you're better than that: if your perspective of antagonism in the independence movement is different, then I'm keen to learn. Cos on the face of it, YOU fired the first generalisation, not me, so if my glibness offends, then enlighten instead of high-horse sarcasm

Scotland is a deeply nuanced situation, where bringing the still ~40% of the population floating between pragmatic, to sceptic, to unionist into independence, without violence or resistance will be tricky - but I also see no evidence of a repetition of (say) Ireland's history either. The nationalist movement appears eager, but also streetwise and canny to the realism of the situation (nor backed by the media which AFAIK remains neutral at best). Brexit has probably thrown a grenade into the timeline, but also a wakeup call about the limits of a devolved government at this stage. None of this speaks to a resting anglophobia however.

I didn't mention anything about Anglophobia, although rampant in Scotland I wouldn't accuse the SNP of that. They do nicely feed in to the rampant Anglophobia in Scotland though and use that to their ends as any nationalist party would (and does).

And yes, I would generalise about the distinction on here being, well, non existent, when you have posters using phrases like "Lying Sassanach's" about the no campaign, what other conclusion is there?

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

when you have posters using phrases like "Lying Sassanach's" about the no campaign, what other conclusion is there?

I put 'sassanach' into the Boards search facility and it returned 3 posts in the Politics forum

1 post almost 5 days ago
1 post almost 10 years ago
1 post almost 11 years ago

pixelburp

Aegir wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about Anglophobia, although rampant in Scotland I wouldn't accuse the SNP of that. They do nicely feed in to the rampant Anglophobia in Scotland though and use that to their ends as any nationalist party would (and does).

And yes, I would generalise about the distinction on here being, well, non existent, when you have posters using phrases like "Lying Sassanach's" about the no campaign, what other conclusion is there?

Ok, then you won't mind supplying some evidence of the SNP stoking / feeding into Anglophobia, cos this is news to me. I'm not a particular fan of the SNP either, but wouldn't ever call Sturgeon a leader who "feeds in" to hostilities. If it's "rampant" then it shouldn't be hard to find? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm just genuinely curious, 'cos outside of aforementioned sporting rivalries I don't see any great toxicity in Scotland to the degree you appear to be implying.

"rampant" is a fairly charged word after all; bordering on stereotyping, you could say

And indeed, as the very previous poster mentions, talk of "Lying Sassanach" is equally surprising, as while it's clear most posters here support independence, you're painting an unfair suggestion of a mouth-frothing frenzy I can't claim to have seen. Bias, sure; but given nicknames and slurs are banned in the charter here, I'm surprised they're slipping through if you say posters are using them here. I admit to having skimmed the last couple of pages, but I generally try to report most vulgarities / nicknames etc... *shrug*

Imreoir2

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I put 'sassanach' into the Boards search facility and it returned 3 posts in the Politics forum

1 post almost 5 days ago
1 post almost 10 years ago
1 post almost 11 years ago

Indeed Aegir is the first poster in the history of Boards.ie to use the phrase "Lying Sassanach's".

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about Anglophobia, although rampant in Scotland I wouldn't accuse the SNP of that. They do nicely feed in to the rampant Anglophobia in Scotland though and use that to their ends as any nationalist party would (and does).

And yes, I would generalise about the distinction on here being, well, non existent, when you have posters using phrases like "Lying Sassanach's" about the no campaign, what other conclusion is there?

To be honest, the SNP doesn't need to do anything at the moment as their ends are being met perfectly well by BoJo's English National Party. Maybe threatening navy gunboats in the channel goes down well with the xenophobia rampant in England but it is viewed with disdain in Scotland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/12/tories-criticise-boris-johnson-navy-gunboats-brexit-threat

Water John

Know it isn't connected to Scottish Ind, but when last was Hadrain's Wall shut to traffic, with Scotland banning travel to the UK?
Quite symbolic

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Know it isn't connected to Scottish Ind, but when last was Hadrain's Wall shut to traffic, with Scotland banning travel to the UK?
Quite symbolic

At the eastern end it's 109km to Scotland.

That's further than Dublin to Newry.

For most of the history there's been a buffer area between England and Scotland where the laws were slightly different.
Might happen again if the 10mile/16Km proposal for NI was used. :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Same as happened in Ireland.


Sinn Féin ultimately split in to FF and FG.

Long story short. A small SF attracted lots of carpet baggers before the big election. Very soon after independence the blow-in's decamped to FF and Cumann na nGaedheal (who later joined up with the Blueshirts and the National Centre Party to become Fine Gael)

The original SF party minus those who jumped in and then out again got no seats in '23 and lost the 5 seats they got in 1927 just a few months later.



Closest approximation would be Plaid Cymru going from 4 seats to 37 and then going back to being the Popular Front for Wales leaving an independent Welsh parliament dominated by the Peoples front for Wales and the Welsh people's front.


It has no relation to the SNP who have been a big party for far longer.



But yes I do expect the SNP to split after independence. But that's not a bad thing.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Long story short. A small SF attracted lots of carpet baggers before the big election. Very soon after independence the blow-in's decamped to FF and Cumann na nGaedheal (who later joined up with the Blueshirts and the National Centre Party to become Fine Gael)

The original SF party minus those who jumped in and then out again got no seats in '23 and lost the 5 seats they got in 1927 just a few months later.

Except the irredentist republicans who remained in SF after 1927 were also among the "carpetbaggers" who piled in before the 1918 election. SF was founded as a party that advocated (a) Irish independence within a dual monarchy, plus (b) a campaign of passive resistance for acheiving that. This wasn't a hugely popular platform and the party struggled to get traction and relevance - so much so that, when the volunteer movement split in 1914 and SF was one of the groups that elected to affiliate with the Irish Volunteers, John Redmond labelled them the "Sinn Fein Volunteers" because he thought that would suggest that the Irish Volunteers were as small, impractical, ineffective and unrealistic as SF was already perceived to be.

The label stuck, and the Irish Volunteers were popularly seen as being the creature of Sinn Fein, even though this was not in fact the case - they were controlled by the IRB. And this led to a general association between all forms of extreme or hardline nationalism and the SF brand that, in fact, did not reflect reality, but it suited the IRB, which operated as a secret organisation. After the suppression of the Rising, SF were the one political organisation that was left largely intact, mainly because Dublin Castle had ignored it as irrelevant, and hadn't infiltrated it or gathered much intelligence about it. The result of that was that, as the Republican movement regrouped, SF was still available for takeover, and they duly took it over. Figures like de Valera, Collins, Cosgrave and Plunkett, who had never previously been members, joined the party. It was under their influence in 1917 that SF committed itself to an Irish Republic.

When SF split over the Treaty it was the "carpetbaggers" who remained in control of the party. Most of the original SF members and movement, like Griffiths, took the pro-Treaty side and eventually ended up in CnaG.

serfboard

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I do expect the SNP to split after independence. But that's not a bad thing.

Agreed. I think you'd see a rebranding in Scotland after Independence. I'd expect something like a Social Democrats (lefty-SNP and Labour party members), Liberal Democrats and Christian Democrats (Conservatives and righty-SNP members).

druss

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1340992084573085696



Starmer strongly against IndyRef2, for what that matters. More devolutionary promises instead.

In short term, I'd imagine the only effect of this is to ensure Scottish Labour remain on life-support at best.

Water John

Yes, it doesn't matter, after the GE he may have a choice to make. Do a deal with SNP which allows a Ref and become PM or cause a second GE.

serfboard

Water John wrote: »

Yes, it doesn't matter, after the GE he may have a choice to make. Do a deal with SNP which allows a Ref and become PM or cause a second GE.

Indeed. And if I were the SNP, I'd make that a very short window - a referendum within the first 12 months.

Winters

serfboard wrote: »

Agreed. I think you'd see a rebranding in Scotland after Independence. I'd expect something like a Social Democrats (lefty-SNP and Labour party members), Liberal Democrats and Christian Democrats (Conservatives and righty-SNP members).

Agree with both of you. I would also advise that they look at a version of PR for their electoral system or they'll just end up in the FPTP binary politics.

Sam Russell

Winters wrote: »

Agree with both of you. I would also advise that they look at a version of PR for their electoral system or they'll just end up in the FPTP binary politics.

They already have a list system for the Assembly which is a lesser version of STV - practiced in some European countries. You vote for the candidates and also vote separately for the party. The party has a list that is selected from the top.

The UK used such a list system for the EU Parliament elections which is why Farage managed to get elected so easily. They had no votes for candidates. This appears to be designed so political parties retain a tight control.

BonnieSituation

Winters wrote: »

Agree with both of you. I would also advise that they look at a version of PR for their electoral system or they'll just end up in the FPTP binary politics.

They use AMS for parliament elections and STV for local elections.

I can't imagine they'll reintroduce FPTP for parliament on independence.

BonnieSituation

druss wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1340992084573085696



Starmer strongly against IndyRef2, for what that matters. More devolutionary promises instead.

In short term, I'd imagine the only effect of this is to ensure Scottish Labour remain on life-support at best.

He answered a question that the SNP aren't even asking.

Do you honestly think that Nicola Sturgeon has any interest in fighting a referendum during the pandemic.

Unionists just don't get it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Starmer is mad to think the people in Scotland will fall for the old Labour bait and switch trick

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1341016436303679489

Sam Russell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Starmer is mad to think the people in Scotland will fall for the old Labour bait and switch trick

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1341016436303679489

Surely the answer for Labour to back independence and plan to enter a coalition that would grant a referendum, and also reform FPTP.

Labours last attempt to preserve their 40 Scottish seats by opposing IndyRef1 ended losing 39 of them. Not a good result.

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely the answer for Labour to back independence and plan to enter a coalition that would grant a referendum, and also reform FPTP.

Labours last attempt to preserve their 40 Scottish seats by opposing IndyRef1 ended losing 39 of them. Not a good result.

Might be a good move for Scottish Labour, but would probably do serious damage to Labour in England.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Might be a good move for Scottish Labour, but would probably do serious damage to Labour in England.

Just prior to the IndyRef vote, it was the arrival in Scotland in force on a single train of English Labour MPs that did for Labour in Scotland.

It was so tone deaf that it was breath taking.

View

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Might be a good move for Scottish Labour, but would probably do serious damage to Labour in England.

That just means that Labour, like the Conservatives, are basically just an English nationalist party. The leaves the choice in Scotland between the SNP and the unionist parties, with the Conservatives typically regarded as the “soundest” unionist party.

cameramonkey

Lets face it the English seem nearly as clueless about Scotland as they are about Ireland.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

That just means that Labour, like the Conservatives, are basically just an English nationalist party. The leaves the choice in Scotland between the SNP and the unionist parties, with the Conservatives typically regarded as the “soundest” unionist party.

Yup. The truth is that for Scottish Labour, independence is probably an attractive prospect. The SNP is a bit like Sinn Fein in 1918; it has a very broad appeal now on a question that tends to eclipse all others, but once that question has been answered the political landsape will change. Either the SNP will splinter (hopefully without a civil war ) or voters will switch away from it after independence has been acheived in order to express support for competing visions of how now-independent should govern itself. Either development can only be good for the Scottish Labour party.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup. The truth is that for Scottish Labour, independence is probably an attractive prospect. The SNP is a bit like Sinn Fein in 1918; it has a very broad appeal now on a question that tends to eclipse all others, but once that question has been answered the political landsape will change. Either the SNP will splinter (hopefully without a civil war ) or voters will switch away from it after independence has been acheived in order to express support for competing visions of how now-independent should govern itself. Either development can only be good for the Scottish Labour party.

I don't see that at all. The SNP are a seasoned government party. They are not a one trick pony by any means. And the liklihood of a civil war is approxitate to the ROI having one, next to zero.

The SNP will naturally lose some support, but I don't see whay they'd fracture or effectively disappear like the original SF.

A Dub in Glasgo

A lot of people (myself included) vote for the SNP as a means to an end - there are a lot of shenanigans going on in the SNP which would put off voters. I have no doubt the SNP will fracture if that end is achieved

serfboard

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see why they'd fracture

They'll fracture because that's what happens in post-independent countries. Independence is one vision - post-independence contains many different and competing visions, not maintainable within a single party.

Peregrinus

Thney'll not necessarily fracture as an organisation, but their broad support will fracture. Once people are no longer united in support for the SNP by the shared goal of attaining independence, they'll start to express competing views as to how Scotland should make use of that independence. You'll likely see some people preferring a Green programme for government, some preferring a socialist programme, some a centrist programme, and so on. Without the campaign for independence to bind them together, the SNP will not be able to retain the votes of all these competing groups. Possibly the SNP splits into two or more competing groups, or possibly it simply bleeds votes to resurgent Green, Labour, centrist, etc political movements. Either way, the SNP ceases to dominate Scottish electoral politics in the way that it does now, and a conventional European-style multiparty system emerges, as it tends to do in all democracies with proportional representation.