Scottish independence

rock22

Peregrinus wrote: »

Current polls are not "about the same as at the time of the Scottish referendum in 2014". "No" led in all polls in 2012 and 2013, and in all but 2 polls in 2014. The last ten polls before the referendum were all won by "no", by margins of between 1% and 7%. (The margin of victory for "no" in the referendum itself was 10%). Whereas "Yes" has won all except two polls in 2020, and it has won all of the the most recent ten polls by margins of between 1% and 16%.

Victory is by no means certain, but based on a comparison of the polls in both cases "Yes" is in a much stronger position now than it was in 2014, and "No" in a correspondingly weaker position.

I was simply summarising the link you provided which stated
"Polls in the run-up to the referendum vote showed a closing of the gap, with one poll giving the Yes campaign a 51–49 lead. In the referendum, on 18 September 2014, Scotland voted against independence by 55.3% to 44.7%, with an overall turnout of 84.6%."

My point was that the momentum seemed to be with the Yes side with "one poll giving the Yes campaign a 51–49 lead". which is similar to the latest result, yet the actual referendum result was for 'No' by a margin of about 10%.
Perhaps you are right, but personally I would be nervous of another referendum with only approximately 50 50 split. And as has been said by Breatheme, if another vote rejects independence then it is likely to be many years before another referendum.

bob mcbob

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

George Osborne being quite candid in his comment piece in todays Evening Standard. With the SNP shooting down a plan B, there is little hope that the current leadership of the SNP will do anything different and they get power for another parliamentary term

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/nationalism-union-brexit-b900299.html

Taking slightly different view from Osborne's quote in the Irish Times

The departure of Scotland from the UK would be a more serious matter, he implies, and it would represent the end of the United Kingdom “with no disrespect to the Welsh”.
He said the worst evening he spent in Downing Street was on September 18th, 2014, awaiting the results of the Scottish independence referendum with then prime minister David Cameron.
“We thought: are we the people who have lost Scotland? History allows for no recovery from a disaster like that. Ask Lord North, the prime minister condemned for all time for the loss of America.
“The mistake he made — and with Irish calls for home rule a century later — had been to assume that doing nothing was an option. Our referendum was a proactive plan to keep the United Kingdom together — and it looked like it had put Scottish nationalism back in its box for a generation.”

The arrogance of this - he is saying that the only reason that America is independent is due to the mistakes of Lord North and without him America would still be a colony.

Advising British prime minister Boris Johnson, Mr Osborne said he should refuse to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence.
“It’s the only sure way you won’t lose one,” he added.
“Just say no, Boris, and save yourself a long anxious night in Downing Street.”

So Boris getting a good nights sleep is more important than the democratic desires of millions of people. It pretty much sums up the Tory party.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/north-slowly-becoming-part-of-united-ireland-says-former-british-chancellor-1.4463045

bob mcbob

pixelburp wrote: »

An ostensibly surprising dip from the mid-50s previous polls had been showing. Especially given Brexit and recent Tory clumsiness re. Scottish fishing. Wonder what changed or is different with this survey; if there's some kind of cooling on independence, or just a deviance in terms of the demographics polled.

This poll took place last week before the scale of the Brexit shambles became apparent.

bob mcbob

As a follow up on the political genius of George Osborne in particular with the Brexit vote. From May 2016

Osborne in the middle of project fear.

Appearing alongside David Cameron, he said in a worst-case "severe shock" scenario, a UK exit could result in 6% lower GDP over two years, the loss of 820,000 jobs, a 4% fall in average incomes, a 15% collapse in the value of the pound and £39bn added to government borrowing.
The SNP leader, who is leading the campaign for a Remain vote in Scotland, said there would be an economic impact from leaving but the Treasury was "overstating its case".

Sturgeon said that project fear does not work

We only have to look at the Scottish independence referendum to know that kind of fear-based campaigning starts to insult people's intelligence and can start to have a negative effect."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36362047

We all know what happened next.

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

Taking slightly different view from Osborne's quote in the Irish Times

The departure of Scotland from the UK would be a more serious matter, he implies, and it would represent the end of the United Kingdom “with no disrespect to the Welsh”.
He said the worst evening he spent in Downing Street was on September 18th, 2014, awaiting the results of the Scottish independence referendum with then prime minister David Cameron.
“We thought: are we the people who have lost Scotland? History allows for no recovery from a disaster like that. Ask Lord North, the prime minister condemned for all time for the loss of America.
“The mistake he made — and with Irish calls for home rule a century later — had been to assume that doing nothing was an option. Our referendum was a proactive plan to keep the United Kingdom together — and it looked like it had put Scottish nationalism back in its box for a generation.”

The arrogance of this - he is saying that the only reason that America is independent is due to the mistakes of Lord North and without him America would still be a colony.

That isn't what he is saying at all.

What he is saying is that Lord North is remembered for one thing and one thing only, the PM who lost America.

That's the biggest issue for a PM, I doubt very much if they care whether or not Scotland leaves or stays, they just don't want to be the person remembered for holding the reigns when it happened.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

I doubt very much if they care whether or not Scotland leaves or stays, they just don't want to be the person remembered for holding the reigns when it happened.

Osborne states

[Scotland independence] would represent the end of the United Kingdom. The rest of the world would instantly see that we were no longer a front-rank power, or even in the second row. We would instead be one of the great majority of countries who are on the receiving end of the decisions made by a few, subject to the values of others. We would become another historically interesting case study in how successful nations can perform unexpected acts of national suicide.
Related


So how can Boris Johnson avoid this disaster

Sounds like England would care

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Osborne states

Sounds like England Osborne would care

fixed that for you

Lumen

It's a bit like arguing that you don't want a divorce because you can't stand the idea people knowing that you couldn't keep a marriage together.

Not the kind of argument to win back the love of a neglected spouse.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

Which bit of Devo max hasn’t been launched?

There seems to be an ongoing belief that "The Pledge" (which was from all three main UK party leaders, not just Cameron) has not been honoured, but there seems to be a lack of willingness to explain what/why.

Given you feel so strongly that The Pledge has been honoured, then perhaps you could inform us about the detail.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Given you feel so strongly that The Pledge has been honoured, then perhaps you could inform us about the detail.

it takes about six seconds to google that.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/contents/enacted

so tell me, which bit you have a problem with?

Capt'n Midnight

bob mcbob wrote: »

As a follow up on the political genius of George Osborne in particular with the Brexit vote. From May 2016

Osborne in the middle of project fear.

Appearing alongside David Cameron, he said in a worst-case "severe shock" scenario, a UK exit could result in 6% lower GDP over two years, the loss of 820,000 jobs, a 4% fall in average incomes, a 15% collapse in the value of the pound and £39bn added to government borrowing.
The SNP leader, who is leading the campaign for a Remain vote in Scotland, said there would be an economic impact from leaving but the Treasury was "overstating its case".

Brexit has already cost the UK £200Bn

Scottish Whisky faces a 25% tariff in the USA because it's UK and not EU whisky.

Scottish fishing is being decimated.

And Sterling has dropped by how much since the Brexit referendum ?

Peregrinus

But, Aegir, if devo max has been delivered, that doesn't really help the unionist cause now. Becuse (a) the delivery of devo max didn't assuage the appetite for independence more that temporarily (at best); it appears to be higher now than it was when devo max was promised. And (b) devo max, having already been delivered, cannot be delivered again. This time round, Westminster would have to promise something else. Devo max max? Devo max²?

Whatever. If devo max didn't succeed in defusing the demand for independence, then there is no reason to assume that devo max² will do the trick; when a policy has been tried and has failed, trying harder is a really bad strategy.

It seems to me that the renewed appetite for independence has been fuelled by Brexit and by the manner of its implementation. If unionists want to assuage that appetite, they need to analyse what has caused it and frame a strategy for defusing that. Promising devo max² is certainly not that strategy. Brexit is a done deal and cannot be reversed — certainly not within the timeframe needed to take the steam out of the independence movement. Perhaps the best unionists can do is to offer fundamental constitutional change that would ensure that nothing of the scale and signficance of Brexit could ever happen again without the assent of Scotland. I don't know whether that would be sufficient — door, horse, bolted — but it would at least be meaningful. But for a variety of reasons I doubt that it would be acceptable to the faction that now dominates the Tory party, which presumably would explain why Johnson is not going there.

Thus far Johnson's defence seems to be simple stonewalling — he won't allow a referendum; therefore the question of whether the Scots want independence doesn't arise. But this can't be a viable long-term strategy; to save the union unionists need to win the argument, not avoid it.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, Aegir, if devo max has been delivered, that doesn't really help the unionist cause now. Becuse (a) the delivery of devo max didn't assuage the appetite for independence more that temporarily (at best); it appears to be higher now than it was when devo max was promised. And (b) devo max, having already been delivered, cannot be delivered again. This time round, Westminster would have to promise something else. Devo max max? Devo max²?

Whatever. If devo max didn't succeed in defusing the demand for independence, then there is no reason to assume that devo max² will do the trick; when a policy has been tried and has failed, trying harder is a really bad strategy.

all very good questions. It doesn't detract from the fact that post indyref, a cross party group was formed under the leadership of Robert Smith to investigate further devolution and its conclusions agreed and implemented. This group included members of the SNP and Scottish greens.

The fact that a number of those powers have not been implemented is purely down to the Scottish government choosing not to.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

all very good questions. It doesn't detract from the fact that post indyref, a cross party group was formed under the leadership of Robert Smith to investigate further devolution and its conclusions agreed and implemented. This group included members of the SNP and Scottish greens.

The fact that a number of those powers have not been implemented is purely down to the Scottish government choosing not to.

The parties to the Smith Commission also agreed the following, how are they honouring that?

the report has been honoured, it covers the devolvement of powers to the Scottish parliament.

By your logic, the Smith commission does not say Scotland should be an independent country, so the SNP are not honouring it by pushing for a referendum.

this kind of logic is very Faragesque. what next, Westminster is taking away our bendy bananas?

A Dub in Glasgo

The report states that the parties will honour the right of the people of Scotland to choose independence, how is that being honoured by the Conservative Party (or even the Labour Party)?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The report states that the parties will honour the right of the people of Scotland to choose independence, how is that being honoured by the Conservative Party (or even the Labour Party)?

and how has that right been taken away?

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

Do you really think that holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic is the right thing to do? Come to think of it, should the elections in May still go ahead?

pixelburp

Aegir wrote: »

and how has that right been taken away?

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

Do you really think that holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic is the right thing to do? Come to think of it, should the elections in May still go ahead?

We've literally just seen a major democratic election take place, in a country with a pretty bad adherence to CoVid advice; I think the question of whether elections should take place is moot. They can happen with the right precautions.

As to how often a referendum takes place, it feels disingenuous to ignore the significant narrative Brexit has played in stirring the pot. The last referendum failed off the back of an open, very public narrative of "say No and stay in the EU". Better Together. Only 2 years later, that was proven demonstrably false, with Scotland pulled out of the EU anyway - even though it rejected Brexit by the largest majority across the 4 constituent states. Who can say how many voted No in 2014 because of that pragmatism that doing so kept Scotland in the EU. Now they're out, mostly because of a surge in English nationalism.

Ordinarily, I'd agree: 6 years between referenda is nonsense & far too short. However, that would be to willfully ignore the context and changes that have taken place across those 6 years to significantly change Scottish politics, and society. I'd go so far as to say that 2014 referendum happened under false pretences.

L1011

Aegir wrote: »

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

The UK already has an agreed repeat interval structure should NI have a failed border poll - 7 years. Which we're now at.

Different situation but comparable.

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

Ordinarily, I'd agree: 6 years between referenda is nonsense & far too short. However, that would be to willfully ignore the context and changes that have taken place across those 6 years to significantly change Scottish politics, and society. I'd go so far as to say that 2014 referendum happened under false pretences.

If 6 years is too short, why do they have General Elections every five years?

We see that Joe Biden in his first day in office signed 17 executive orders that reversed totally some of executive orders signed over the last four years by his predecessor (who ever he was). If he can reverse all his predecessors actions in his first day, that is democracy in action.

If the circumstances change, then it can be time for political change to reflect that change. After all, the arguments for remaining in a union or leaving that union can be applied equally to the EU as it can be to the UK. Isn't it hypocritical to say it applies absolutely to one and definitely not the other?

Lumen

If the Scots want to be out of the UK, that's great for them.

But I'd like to see at least 60/40 in favour, or >50% of the electorate. Same with a united Ireland, both sides of the border.

Wafer slim majorities in these matters are a recipe for grievance and division.

I think there is a strong case for re-running the referendum now that Brexit is done, but maybe wait a year or so for the dust to settle so the Scots can see how ROI and NI are coping with a non-EU landbridge. Even if a referendum was held now, I can't see that exit wouldn't be fast enough to save the businesses hit by Brexit trade barriers, and it would might remove all pressure from Westminster to pursue short term mitigations.

pixelburp

Sam Russell wrote: »

If 6 years is too short, why do they have General Elections every five years?

I think I've explained my thinking in the part you quote; that if the circumstances around which the referenda took place have changed that seismically - as they did with Brexit - then a re-run makes eminent sense. NI's very existence is fragile enough that the 7 year lag time for a Border Poll is there to catch immediate results of the poll. Otherwise, you really are just running something again, hoping or angling for a different result. It's not necessarily anti-democratic but is a general waste of time, money and energies better used elsewhere. As to General Elections, well having them every 4, 5 years is, if nothing else, a simple bulwark against an easy slide into autocracy aside from anything else

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

We've literally just seen a major democratic election take place, in a country with a pretty bad adherence to CoVid advice; I think the question of whether elections should take place is moot. They can happen with the right precautions.

they can, but that doesn't mean they should.

for the record, I think the Holyrood elections should take place, but holding an independence referendum seems like an unnecessary risk, especially when we are hopefully starting to see light at the end of the tunnel

pixelburp wrote: »

As to how often a referendum takes place, it feels disingenuous to ignore the significant narrative Brexit has played in stirring the pot. The last referendum failed off the back of an open, very public narrative of "say No and stay in the EU". Better Together. Only 2 years later, that was proven demonstrably false, with Scotland pulled out of the EU anyway - even though it rejected Brexit by the largest majority across the 4 constituent states. Who can say how many voted No in 2014 because of that pragmatism that doing so kept Scotland in the EU. Now they're out, mostly because of a surge in English nationalism.

a surge which was a direct result of the Scottish referendum.

One million Scots voted to leave the EU, it could easily be said that those one million also voted for independence as they saw it as a way out of the eu as well. I agree that Brexit is a significant event, but i'm not sure you can make the direct correlation between people voting YES and voting to remain.

pixelburp wrote: »

Ordinarily, I'd agree: 6 years between referenda is nonsense & far too short. However, that would be to willfully ignore the context and changes that have taken place across those 6 years to significantly change Scottish politics, and society. I'd go so far as to say that 2014 referendum happened under false pretences.

you can only say it as false pretences if the no side knew that the UK was going to leave the EU. The main characters in the no campaign were all campaigning to remain.

Before the question of another referendum is posed, I believe the Holyrood elections need to take place. If there is a significant move towards the independence parties then i would agree that the time is right, but it seems pointless to do so beforehand.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

If 6 years is too short, why do they have General Elections every five years?

We see that Joe Biden in his first day in office signed 17 executive orders that reversed totally some of executive orders signed over the last four years by his predecessor (who ever he was). If he can reverse all his predecessors actions in his first day, that is democracy in action.

If the circumstances change, then it can be time for political change to reflect that change. After all, the arguments for remaining in a union or leaving that union can be applied equally to the EU as it can be to the UK. Isn't it hypocritical to say it applies absolutely to one and definitely not the other?

a vote for independence or in NI's case unification, it is a one way street. There is no going back.

A general election does not change things permanently.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

and how has that right been taken away?

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

Do you really think that holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic is the right thing to do? Come to think of it, should the elections in May still go ahead?

Mandates arising from elections in Scotland?

Sustained polling showing majority support for holding a referendum?

You want to deny the people of Scotland the chance to revisit their decision from 2014, why?

Any referendum will be at least a year away

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Mandates arising from elections in Scotland?

Sustained polling showing majority support for holding a referendum?

You want to deny the people of Scotland the chance to revisit their decision from 2014, why?

Any referendum will be at least a year away

mandates from which election?

The last general election where the SNP got 45% of the vote, or the last Holyrood one where they got 46%?

I have no interest in denying the Scots of anything (notice I use the term Scots there, not people of Scotland. I don't believe non Scots should have the right to vote, just as i would not wish to vote on Irish unification) I just don't believe the time is right.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is not for you or the Tories in England to decide that

Pro-independence parties have won every election in Scotland since 2015. In normal functioning democracies, parties put their manifesto to the electorate and the one who wins and can form a governement gets to enact their manifesto. This is how the Conservaties introduced the referendum on Brexit. You now want the goalposts to be moved



What is the expected outcome of the 2021 election?

There is no defined 'Scot' therefore it is the people who live in Scotland who should determine their future. The independence movement in Scotland is not about blood and soil nationalism as you want it to be

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is not for you or the Tories in England to decide that

it is up to the Prime Minster of the UK, whoever that may be at the time.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Pro-independence parties have won every election in Scotland since 2015. In normal functioning democracies, parties put their manifesto to the electorate and the one who wins and can form a governement gets to enact their manifesto. This is how the Conservaties introduced the referendum on Brexit. You now want the goalposts to be moved

What is the expected outcome of the 2021 election?

we'll know when the election is held. If the SNP/Greens get a majority again then great, go for a referendum. As I have said, I don't think the time is right at the moment.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There is no defined 'Scot' therefore it is the people who live in Scotland who should determine their future. The independence movement in Scotland is not about blood and soil nationalism as you want it to be

what is it about then?

I gave my opinion, that's all. I just happen to believe that there is a limit to what to non citizens should be able to vote on (the UK for example allows the Irish to vote in referendums, but the Irish do not reciprocate that for some reason), hence my saying I would not vote in an Irish unification referendum. Apologies if that doesn't suit you.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

it is up to the Prime Minster of the UK, whoever that may be at the time.

Is the UK a voluntary union?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Is the UK a voluntary union?

Good question. One that unfortunately was not considered when our forefathers created it.