Scottish independence

forgottenhills

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

That will likely be the long term way it will pan out but are we talking 10 or 20 years down the line? First of all the SNP have to secure a referendum go-ahead, then actually come to the referendum with a policy on future currency that makes sense, have something solid on a timetable for EU accession that is not just an aspiration, have an agreed position on a trade and border relationship with England in a post Brexit world, agree with the Shetlands that they will be on board with their oil and fish and sell all these plans to an electorate. Not a gimme by any means. And then hope that they have a clear win in any referendum as the proverbial 51% to 49% win or similar wouldn't be a great platform for massive constitutional change. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the UK's death has been greatly exaggerated.

Peregrinus

forgottenhills wrote: »

That will likely be the long term way it will pan out but are we talking 10 or 20 years down the line? . . .

We're talking quite quickly, once Scottish independence has been acheived, which of course could be any number of years away. What gives the SNP its dominant position is that people who may disagree about other things agree on the priority of attaining Scottish independence, and support the SNP in order to bring this about. Once it has been brought about, they no longer have the overriding incentive to bury their disagreements on other issues, and multi=party politics should assert itself pretty rapidly.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're talking quite quickly, once Scottish independence has been acheived, which of course could be any number of years away. What gives the SNP its dominant position is that people who may disagree about other things agree on the priority of attaining Scottish independence, and support the SNP in order to bring this about. Once it has been brought about, they no longer have the overriding incentive to bury their disagreements on other issues, and multi=party politics should assert itself pretty rapidly.

History teaches that left wing parties split quite rapidly. Was it not Brendan Behan who said the first item on the agenda is the split. Right wingers tend to bite their lip and bide their time.

If the IndyRef2 is quite prescriptive in the actions and negotiations that are needed to achieve full independence, then the inevitable splits will be some time off - but inevitable never the less.

It is a question of the leadership if the SNP can keep the lid on the demands of the various factions.

forgottenhills

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're talking quite quickly, once Scottish independence has been acheived, which of course could be any number of years away. What gives the SNP its dominant position is that people who may disagree about other things agree on the priority of attaining Scottish independence, and support the SNP in order to bring this about. Once it has been brought about, they no longer have the overriding incentive to bury their disagreements on other issues, and multi=party politics should assert itself pretty rapidly.

The problem is that achieving Scottish independence i.e persuading the majority to vote yes in an actual binding vote (not a poll) will require the SNP to have concrete plans already in place about currency, achieving accession to the EU and trade/border relations with England, Wales & NI. They did not have concrete plans in place the last time around, they only had mere aspirations on close examination, and there will be an even greater scrutiny by the electorate next time around due to the experience of another big project with no concrete plans (Brexit). So the SNP have to somehow carry out negotiations with several key stakeholders to get sign off on key proposals on currency, accession and borders before the date of a referendum. And by the way the main UK parties won't be in any rush to let that referendum go ahead any time soon.

So at least 10-20 years before a successful ref can be called. If the SNP call it without these foundations being in place they could easily lose it again imo.

A Dub in Glasgo

forgottenhills wrote: »

The Shetlands and indeed Orkney are not overly enthusiastic about joining an independent Scotland and are debating other options offering a greater degree of self-determination for them such as becoming a Crown dependency. Why don't you look up the Scottish press and other online sources and inform yourself about this debate? I thought you would be all for the rights to self-determination for small island nations?

You should expand your sources and not rely on the unionist press

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18711945.fact-check-shetland-islands-really-want-break-away-scotland/

forgottenhills

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You should expand your sources and not rely on the unionist press

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18711945.fact-check-shetland-islands-really-want-break-away-scotland/

What is this obsession with Unionist this and that? I am Irish I don't have an opinion on self-autonomy for the Shetlands and I look at all sources. The media source you have linked above affirms what I have said, that there is a debate going on in Shetlands about whether they would be better off to stay independent to some degree of Scotland. So as I said the SNP will have to have a dialogue with the Shetlands to make sure that they will be happy to come on board an independent Scotland, a new country that will have a new currency and new customs controls with the UK, not a small step to take for a potentially reluctant island partner.

ancapailldorcha

forgottenhills wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the the Faeroes, an obvious model in the area for a degree of self-autonomy that suits them from a larger country? Perhaps the Shetlands would like the same?

Cut out the snide comments please.

ancapailldorcha

Enough of the whatboutery. The thread is about Scottish independence. Off topic posts deleted.

Peregrinus

forgottenhills wrote: »

The problem is that achieving Scottish independence i.e persuading the majority to vote yes in an actual binding vote (not a poll) will require the SNP to have concrete plans already in place about currency, achieving accession to the EU and trade/border relations with England, Wales & NI. They did not have concrete plans in place the last time around, they only had mere aspirations on close examination, and there will be an even greater scrutiny by the electorate next time around due to the experience of another big project with no concrete plans (Brexit). So the SNP have to somehow carry out negotiations with several key stakeholders to get sign off on key proposals on currency, accession and borders before the date of a referendum. And by the way the main UK parties won't be in any rush to let that referendum go ahead any time soon.

So at least 10-20 years before a successful ref can be called. If the SNP call it without these foundations being in place they could easily lose it again imo.

No, you're setting the bar far to high.

No country aspiring to independence can ever give concrete guarantees as to what the outcome of post-independence negotiations will be. If that were the test to be applied before people would choose independence, nobody would ever choose independence. And yet they do choose it.

So, no; voters won't reject Scottish independence on the basis that the SNP hasn't got locked-in deals on sterling, on EU membership, etc. They'll look at the SNP's proposals and aspirations in this regard, and make a judgment about how realistic, how practical, how credible they are. And vote on the basis of that.

After all, Brexit got carried in 2016 without locke-in deals on anything at all , and with aspirations which were incoherent, inconsistent and wholly unrealistic. This didn't bother Brexit voters in the least and, in at least some cases, still doesn't bother them; surprisingly few Brexit voters admit to regretting their vote. Scottish voters may be more discriminating but, then, the SNP is going to offer a much more thought-through and (hopefully) realistic proposal than Brexit voters were offered. How the voters will react can only be known when the referendum is actually held, but I think the view that they will reject any proposals that aren't already locked-in is contrary to common sense and observed experience.

Mr.Nice Guy

Potatoes once featured prominently in arguments for Irish independence, and it seems that could also soon be the case for Scotland in 2021.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1342057008405630976

The next few weeks are going to be fascinating when observing the fallout of Brexit talks in Scotland. There will either be a lot of anger as the ramifications of Brexit hit home, or else a weary public will shrug it off as Covid-19 takes most of the focus. I suspect initially it might be the latter effect, although as elections near I could see that changing.

It's a tricky balance for Sturgeon because she has to be seen to push for independence by those who are increasingly anxious to get out of the UK, yet as the virus escalates she has to show the public that this is her top priority. If she can get the balanace right, and I think she's done well on it so far, she should get a good result in the election in May.

Sam Russell

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Potatoes once featured prominently in arguments for Irish independence, and it seems that could also soon be the case for Scotland in 2021.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1342057008405630976

The next few weeks are going to be fascinating when observing the fallout of Brexit talks in Scotland. There will either be a lot of anger as the ramifications of Brexit hit home, or else a weary public will shrug it off as Covid-19 takes most of the focus. I suspect initially it might be the latter effect, although as elections near I could see that changing.

It's a tricky balance for Sturgeon because she has to be seen to push for independence by those who are increasingly anxious to get out of the UK, yet as the virus escalates she has to show the public that this is her top priority. If she can get the balanace right, and I think she's done well on it so far, she should get a good result in the election in May.

I think Covid has shown that Scotland can hold its own against the might of the English* Government and achieve better outcomes with the limited funds allowed it by the English* Government.

*Well, when I say English Government I mean the English devolved Gov only it is not devolved, because it is the same Gov that governs the UK but can give special handouts to England.

Now, there is a good argument for Scottish independence.

TheCitizen

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scotland-faces-ps9-billion-economic-hit-over-brexit-trade-deal-3078944

Scotland faces 9billion quid hit over Brexit bullshít. Interesting that the normally conservative The Scotsman running with a headline like that one.

Time for Scotland to leave the UK union

Water John

See ROI Govn't is covering any student from NI wanting to partake in Erasmus and also EU travel. This is reality of UI before it's politically decided.

pixelburp

At this stage the word best used towards a second referendum feels to be "inexorable", and I'd leave it to others if they feel a "Yes" vote seems equally so. 2/3s of Scots rejected a path they're now forced into, and one which will overtly damage their economy.

I do genuinely try to remain sober and objective towards the subject of independence, acknowledging that I personally support Scottish self determination, but at this juncture it simply feels like a when, not an if.

Imreoir2

pixelburp wrote: »

At this stage the word best used towards a second referendum feels to be "inexorable", and I'd leave it to others if they feel a "Yes" vote seems equally so. 2/3s of Scots rejected a path they're now forced into, and one which will overtly damage their economy.

I do genuinely try to remain sober and objective towards the subject of independence, acknowledging that I personally support Scottish self determination, but at this juncture it simply feels like a when, not an if.

Many a slip between cup and lip.
The Tories are nothing if not sly and slippery. They will use evey trick in the book to get what they want and you can't rule out them finding a way to derail Scottish independance.

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Many a slip between cup and lip.
The Tories are nothing if not sly and slippery. They will use evey trick in the book to get what they want and you can't rule out them finding a way to derail Scottish independance.

They ultimately need to approve it as would a Labour government who I can't see winning a decent majority without Scottish votes. As time goes on, I can only see the support for independence growing as a result.

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They ultimately need to approve it as would a Labour government who I can't see winning a decent majority without Scottish votes. As time goes on, I can only see the support for independence growing as a result.

Deny a 2nd referendum and you'd have to imagine that'll simply play into the hands of those chasing independence; the combo of Tories and Boris Johnson have been a gift to Scots angling to breakaway and almost feels like each time Johnston opens his mouth on the subject of Scotland, support for independence creeps up a point. If he then presides over a denial of a indy rerun, I can't see that going well.

Better to give it to them, and spend the time and money on Better Together Mk 2 than resist and make the result inevitable. Though what angle they'll possibly use this time, given Brexit and all its facets of chaos, is beyond me. Only thing I can think of is to genuinely give the Scots that Devo Max bullshít once promised -, though the IM bill didn't give credence Westminster cares that much for Hollyrood that they'd then give it more powers.

Imreoir2

pixelburp wrote: »

Deny a 2nd referendum and you'd have to imagine that'll simply play into the hands of those chasing independence; the combo of Tories and Boris Johnson have been a gift to Scots angling to breakaway and almost feels like each time Johnston opens his mouth on the subject of Scotland, support for independence creeps up a point. If he then presides over a denial of a indy rerun, I can't see that going well.

Better to give it to them, and spend the time and money on Better Together Mk 2 than resist and make the result inevitable. Though what angle they'll possibly use this time, given Brexit and all its facets of chaos, is beyond me. Only thing I can think of is to genuinely give the Scots that Devo Max bullshít once promised -, though the IM bill didn't give credence Westminster cares that much for Hollyrood that they'd then give it more powers.

Denial of a referendum would likely lead to increased support for independance, but there is no good pathway to independance that does not pass through Westminster. What is the political cost to the Tories for refusal? They already elect few MP's in Scotland and the SNP already rule the roost in Hollyrood. The SNP could face a similar problem to the Irish Home Rule Party, more than enough support at home, but still unable to deliver on their mandate from Westminster.

Refusal of a second referendum by Westminster would also provoke some form of reaction from Scottish nationalists as hard line elements would put pressure on the SNP to have some form of plan B to follow in the case of refusal from Westminster.

The form of that reaction on the Scottish side will be important, over play their hand by trying something like a UDI or holding an unapproved referendum and they might undermine their prospects in the longer term. If on the other hand they are seen to not do enough in reaction to Westminster intransigence, they risk fracturing the movement for independance.

One possible option is to fight the upcoming Hollyrood election on the basis of getting a mandate for a second referendum as they are dooing. If they get that mandate and Westminster refuses to allow a referendum, then they could fight the following Westminster election in a few years time on a similar basis as Sinn Féin in 1918, abstentionism and a UDI. That could up the ante to try to force the UK government to conceed a referendum.

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Deny a 2nd referendum and you'd have to imagine that'll simply play into the hands of those chasing independence; the combo of Tories and Boris Johnson have been a gift to Scots angling to breakaway and almost feels like each time Johnston opens his mouth on the subject of Scotland, support for independence creeps up a point. If he then presides over a denial of a indy rerun, I can't see that going well.

Better to give it to them, and spend the time and money on Better Together Mk 2 than resist and make the result inevitable. Though what angle they'll possibly use this time, given Brexit and all its facets of chaos, is beyond me. Only thing I can think of is to genuinely give the Scots that Devo Max bullshít once promised -, though the IM bill didn't give credence Westminster cares that much for Hollyrood that they'd then give it more powers.

Oh, absolutely but today's Tories seem incapable of thinking even a week or two ahead. That'll be future Boris' problem or whoever succeeds him. For now though, it'll cellotape the union together and that'll do him.

Markcheese

I assume that hollyrood will angle to hold a referendum with or without westminster approval ,
And if (as likely) it's without .. they'll play it to their advantage ...
If westminster complain or even better try suppress the poll then "they're suppressing democracy"
If they don't complain it's tacit approval .. which allows the SNP to claim it's a valid poll ( if having no legal standing ) ,. And the higher the turnout the more they get to claim " it's the will of the people "
And the current tory brexit rhetoric all helps ,so the SNP would be daft to pass up on the opportunity..

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Oh, absolutely but today's Tories seem incapable of thinking even a week or two ahead. That'll be future Boris' problem or whoever succeeds him. For now though, it'll cellotape the union together and that'll do him.

Well that's true. Even by the metrics of Western democracies this Tory government has seemed stunningly short term in its thinking. I can see this referendum being much uglier than the last unfortunately, as said Tories seem less capable of subtly and, without having a better term at hand, charm.

Imreoir2

Markcheese wrote: »

I assume that hollyrood will angle to hold a referendum with or without westminster approval ,
And if (as likely) it's without .. they'll play it to their advantage ...
If westminster complain or even better try suppress the poll then "they're suppressing democracy"
If they don't complain it's tacit approval .. which allows the SNP to claim it's a valid poll ( if having no legal standing ) ,. And the higher the turnout the more they get to claim " it's the will of the people "
And the current tory brexit rhetoric all helps ,so the SNP would be daft to pass up on the opportunity..

An unapproved poll would be boycotted by those opposing independance. As was the case in Catalonia, such a referendum would be of little use. Possibly better to turn an election into a referendum on independance by committng to a UDI in an election manifesto.

Water John

Yes, turning a GE or Hollyrood vote into a Ref is a runner. But also lay emphasis and count the popular vote.
SNP simply put one item on their election manifesto. Don't cloud it with any other issues. Nobody can then deny what people would have voted for.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

Yes, turning a GE or Hollyrood vote into a Ref is a runner. But also lay emphasis and count the popular vote.
SNP simply put one item on their election manifesto. Don't cloud it with any other issues. Nobody can then deny what people would have voted for.

Fine if they win. Might backfire if they do not.

Water John

Sam Russell wrote: »

Fine if they win. Might backfire if they do not.

It simply would mean the majority of the pop don't want Ind. SNP or any political movement has no validity if it would shirk the test as to their raison d'tere.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

It simply would mean the majority of the pop don't want Ind. SNP or any political movement has no validity if it would shirk the test as to their raison d'tere.

To quote Tipp O'Neil, 'When you have the votes, take the vote!'

If they go for an election structured as a referendum, and they lose, then that is it for a loooong time. On the other hand, to go into the Assembly/local elections and get enough votes/seats then they will be able to pressure for IndyRef2 with more pep in their step.

Remember Johnson won an eighty seat majority on 43% of the vote. A massive mandate. If the SNP win an overall majority in the Assembly, even on less than 50% of the vote, they can claim a mandate for whatever they have in their manifesto.

They cannot be certain what dirty tricks will be pulled by the Tories.

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

Yes, turning a GE or Hollyrood vote into a Ref is a runner. But also lay emphasis and count the popular vote.
SNP simply put one item on their election manifesto. Don't cloud it with any other issues. Nobody can then deny what people would have voted for.

But ultimately, hasn't every vote for the SNP been for independence to a greater or lesser extent? The party has never been coy or subtle about its intentions, while the possibility became more realistic since the devolved parliament came into being in 1999. When independence was shot down in 2014 I honestly thought that might cause a downturn in the SNPs fortunes yet 6/7 years later here we are, they're arguably as popular as ever (Brexit possibly causing buyers remorse, coupled with Sturgeon's leadership [such that she even polled well in England}])

Water John

The SNP would want not only the majority of seats but also the popular vote. Over 50% of the pop would want Indy.

Imreoir2

Water John wrote: »

The SNP would want not only the majority of seats but also the popular vote. Over 50% of the pop would want Indy.

The SNP is not the only pro-independance party in Scotland, the Greens for example are also pro-independance. Allowing space in the nationalist movement for pro-independance voters who, for whatever reason, don't like the SNP is important.

Scotland will not be allowed to keep sterling while rejoining the EU. Scots are very unlikely to vote leave if they have to take the jump into the Euro too.