Scottish independence

Water John

If Spain decided to leave and take Catalonia out of the EU also against its wishes, it might play differently. But they a not directly comparable as UK basically is a Union of four countries and that is accepted by all. Also the Scots were already allowed an Indy Ref, denying them an Indy Ref 2 since circumstances have changed, has no standing in any moral sense. Also the UK has agreed to a Ref in NI once its clear a majority in NI might favour such a change.

cameramonkey

Aegir wrote: »

Are the Scots victims then?

If there seems to be a clear majority for independence and the English deny them a democratic referendum to see what the people decide then they may certainly see themselves of victims.

mrunsure

Water John wrote: »

has no standing in any moral sense.

The UK can do what it wants and there's nothing Scotland can do about it, no matter how cruel and immoral.

Water John

mrunsure wrote: »

The UK can do what it wants and there's nothing Scotland can do about it, no matter how cruel and immoral.

You're quite right. But it can't keep such a position, over time. The days of colonialism are over.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

which is an obvious result from England not having a parliament. There is no where else to discuss matters relating solely to England . . . again, this is a result of England not having its own Parliament. There is no where else for this to happen, so it happens in Westminster.

Well, yeah. But there's nowhere else for this to happen because their has neve been a signficant movement seeking English devolution or much traction behind demands of Enlgish devolution because the English don't feel the need for devolved institutions because they believe, correctly, that they can get all the time and attention they need for purely English concerns from the political institutions of the UK.

Aegir wrote: »

No, that is very true, but to bring it to a more local level, it is easy for Dubs to say that Dublin creates all the wealth that the rest of the country takes advantage of.

The reality is that tax take comes from head offices of companies and those head offices usually employ the high earners. Head offices are, more often than not, located in capital cities so wherever a capital is, that is where the tax is generated, particularly in un-federated countries like the UK, Ireland and France. The knock on effect is higher property prices and even further tax revenue generated.

But it's not just that London has higher income and more wealth than the rest of the UK; England has higher income and more wealth than Scotland, Wales and NI. And this isn't be accounted for simply by the fact that London is in England.

Historically Scotland, Wales, NI and (back in the day) Ireland enjoyed lower public spending than England - dramatically lower, in fact. Despite the fact that tax take per head was lower in those countries than in England there was still a net flow of tax from Scotland, etc, to England, because the disparity in public spending was even greater than the disparity in tax take.

This changed with the advent of the welfare state, which led to a much greater share of tax take being spent in a redistributive way, in areas of greater deprivation. And the result now is a net flow of taxes from England to the other countries. But the underlying factor which drives this is greater deprivation in the other countries, and pointing to London as a place with many corporate headquarters in it doesn't really address that point.

Aegir wrote: »

Again, there is nowhere else to discuss Health, Education, Housing, public transport etc. Matters that are hot topics because they are some of the most important things in people's lives so naturally take a lot of a government's time. Remove these from Westminster and suddenly English issues are no longer relevant.

Yeah. You and I agree about this. Except that you frame it as an injustice to England whereas I think, properly viewed, it represents a privileging of England. The English have not felt the want of English institutions because they get everything they need from the UK instititutions.

Aegir wrote: »

The English don't see themselves as having any higher status than anyone else, the reason British is used as often as English in England is that people see British as being somehow politically correct and inclusive. That is changing though as the realisation sinks in that if no one else wants to call themselves British, why should we.

The English don't see themselves as having higher status than anyone else and yet, viewed from outside, they clearly do have higher status. But it's common for the privileged, in all honesty, not to be conscious of their privilege.

I'm not sure what point you're making about the British/English distinction. If it's true that the English, or some of them, see "British" as a politically correct and inclusive alternative to "English"; that would pretty much make my point for me, surely? It's not an alternative term at all; it has a completely different meaning. To view them as alternatives is to erase Scottish, etc identies.

Aegir wrote: »

I don't think it is so much England, more London that needs to be rebalanced. London is such a heavyweight in so many things, it will always distort figures and bias. One of the reasons why the politicians made such a mess of the Brexit referendum was because along with the press, they don't venture out of London enough. London was so in favour of remain, that Politicians and reporters just couldn't understand that people would think otherwise. It wasn't until Labour managed to get the message back to Harriet Harman that it was their supporters outside of London who had issues with the EU, not upper class wannabe libertarians in the city that the penny finally dropped with them, hence the sudden change from opposing the referendum to supporting it.

I'd say completely the opposite. In both of the general elections that have been held since the referendum, parties favouring a second vote have secured an absolute majority of the votes, and yet holding a second vote has been firmly rejected by the political establishment. Opinion polls suggest that a clear majority of the electorate things Brexit is mistake and has thought that for at least the last two years, and yet the Tories have been gung-ho for hard Brexit, and Labour will do no more than criticise the Tory implementation of Brexit, avoiding any suggestion that it might be fundamentally flawed. Whatever we are seeing here, it is not an over-privileging of London opinion.

Aegir wrote: »

Breaking England down in to the pre Alfred kingdoms isn't the answer, all that does is create a huge amount of additional government, that no one really wants. I do believe a German style mix of regions and city states would work, administrations for London, Birmingham and Manchester, and one for the rest of the country, with a minister for each sub region or something like that.

Germany doesn't have a minister for each sub-region. Each of the 16 Länder has its own elected legislature, its own cabinet and its own minister-president, who is elected by and is accountable to the legislature (and who appoints the members of the cabinet).

The Land governments are also much more powerful than any of the devolved governments in the UK. The powers they have are not conferred upon them by the federal government, but by the constitution, which sets out the powers of the federal government (foreign affairs, defence, immigration, citizenship, currency, etc) and the powers of the Länder (policing, justice, housing, education, media and press, etc) and also areas of joint competence (business regulation, taxation, social welfare, health, etc). The Land governments also choose the members of the Bundesrat, the upper house of the Federal Parliament.

So the German system is exactly (and designedly) "a huge amount of additional government".

Aegir wrote: »

I don't think anyone in England would see this as a reduction in status and it would certainly address a lot of the issues England faces.

I think they might wonder what the point of breaking England up into a number of smaller devolved administrations would be. If you're concerned about "a huge amount of additional government", then multiplying the number of governments unnecessarily isn't an obvious course of action. Why not just have one English parliament and one English executive? That would free up Westminster to deal exclusively with matters of trans-UK concern, which I think is what we both feel should happen.

(And I think the Scots, etc, would be quite happy with this. The larger the area and population represented by the English parliament/executive is, and the more national their character, the greater the legal competence they are likely to seek (and get). And of course once a particular competence has been given to the English institutions, it would be hard to withhold it from the Scottish instititutions.)

Water John

Interesting art on LB view on devolved Govn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/scotland-devolution-independence-labour-wealth-local

Disappointed that Lb looking to Gordon Brown to guide it.

'The UK Labour leader, Keir Starmer, recently announced plans for a UK-wide constitutional commission to consider how power, wealth and opportunity can be devolved to the most local level. Advised on by Gordon Brown, it will be the boldest project Labour has embarked on for a generation.'

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Interesting art on LB view on devolved Govn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/scotland-devolution-independence-labour-wealth-local

Disappointed that Lb looking to Gordon Brown to guide it.

'The UK Labour leader, Keir Starmer, recently announced plans for a UK-wide constitutional commission to consider how power, wealth and opportunity can be devolved to the most local level. Advised on by Gordon Brown, it will be the boldest project Labour has embarked on for a generation.'

In 1989 Labour had 7 out of 8 Scottish MEP seats, this had dropped to 2 in 2014 and the political landscape has change again since then.

Labour have ONE MP in Scotland. They had 41 in 2010.

Offering Scotland "Home Rule" isn't serious unless it can be shown it's a genuine offer and you can deliver, and that it can't be overturned by the next Tory government. A resounding NO on all three points.

Mr.Nice Guy

As news emerges that Johnson is to appoint former Mail editor Paul Dacre head of Ofcom, here is a recent poll on the Westminster state of play:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1355606835873669126

England, for reasons I don't understand, seems to be enamoured with Johnson. His blunders do little damage, and he will probably gain a boost from the success of the vaccine drive.

I have to think increasing numbers of traditional Labour supporters in Scotland are going to eventually reach the conclusion that if they want meaningful change, it can only come about through independence.

dogbert27

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

As news emerges that Johnson is to appoint former Mail editor Paul Dacre head of Ofcom, here is a recent poll on the Westminster state of play:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1355606835873669126

England, for reasons I don't understand, seems to be enamoured with Johnson. His blunders do little damage, and he will probably gain a boost from the success of the vaccine drive.

I have to think increasing numbers of traditional Labour supporters in Scotland are going to eventually reach the conclusion that if they want meaningful change, it can only come about through independence.

Because with own goal by the EU over the vaccinations with Astra Zeneca BJ can still play the champion of Brexit card.

Peregrinus

dogbert27 wrote: »

Because with own goal by the EU over the vaccinations with Astra Zeneca BJ can still play the champion of Brexit card.

I don't think this can explain that polling result, because polling was done before the EU's own goal on that particular matter.

Plus, the result is broadly consistent with polling over the past couple of months.

My guess is that any adverse impact on Johnson's polling figures that might have resulted from the early experience of the end of transition is being offset by the positive impact of the government's relatively strong performance in rolling out the vaccine, so his support is more or less holding within the range it has had for some time. This may change if the reality of Brexit continues to be horrible (which I think it will) and/or if delays or other problems develop in the UK's vaccination programme (which, to be clear, I hope won't happen and see no reason to expect).

(This is not to say that the EU's Art 16 cock-up won't have a lasting impact on UK public opinion. But I don't think it will do much to move votes between Tories and Labour, because neither of them is fundamentally critical of Brexit or is perceived to be aligned with or supportive of the EU; missteps by the EU won't tar either of them.)

dogbert27

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this can explain that polling result, because polling was done before the EU's own goal on that particular matter.

Plus, the result is broadly consistent with polling over the past couple of months.

My guess is that any adverse impact on Johnson's polling figures that might have resulted from the early experience of the end of transition is being offset by the positive impact of the government's relatively strong performance in rolling out the vaccine, so his support is more or less holding within the range it has had for some time. This may change if the reality of Brexit continues to be horrible (which I think it will) and/or if delays or other problems develop in the UK's vaccination programme (which, to be clear, I hope won't happen and see no reason to expect).

(This is not to say that the EU's Art 16 cock-up won't have a lasting impact on UK public opinion. But I don't think it will do much to move votes between Tories and Labour, because neither of them is fundamentally critical of Brexit or is perceived to be aligned with or supportive of the EU; missteps by the EU won't tar either of them.)

Cheers, just saw the date of Jan 15th.

Depending on who the polled I suppose, there will be an element of Brexiteers who are on the wave of finally being free of the EU and not feeling any affects yet as you said.

The best thing the EU could do is say less about the UK for the next 6 months and leave them to their own devices.

Water John

Not to derail, but everybody in business had stockpiled before 1st Jan. It is from now on any major import/export effects will begin to become apparent.

dogbert27

Water John wrote: »

Not to derail, but everybody in business had stockpiled before 1st Jan. It is from now on any major import/export effects will begin to become apparent.

I think you're right. The Scottish fishermen and the fishing industry were hit first due to needing to keep there product refrigerated.

They protested and had money thrown at them to shut them up.

How many more Scottish businesses will begin to be affected as their stockpiles dwindle will be interesting to see.

As they become more disgruntled like the fishermen the SNP just have to remind them how Westminister ignored the will of the Scottish people who voted significantly to remain in the EU.

Detritus70

Any Scottish person that does not feel massively trampled underfoot, ignored and shafted by Westminster right now is not paying attention to what's happening or is possibly a benefactor from it.
Ireland, NI and Scotland forming an alliance and joing the EU is the only sane, logical and possible next step.
Then in a few years (or decades) time, England can ask to join the EU as a new applicant. They will have been cut down to size and BoJo will join a line of assorted intellectual lightweights, charlatans and political trolls that were responsible for destroying what was left of the empire.
Even as a German it pains me to see this plane crash in super slo-mo.
I can only hope that people in 10-20 years time will look back upon Trump, Brexit and various right-wing parties in Europe (I absolutey detest those effers from the AfD and Pegida here) and think "what the f was going on at that time, we must have been insane!"
Or maybe we will sit upon the ruins of Europe and fiddle while it's burning.
We truly are living in the stupid ages where political and scientific sense has been replaced by insane conspiracy theories. Personally I believe that up to 20% of the population have gone stark raving bonkers.
I dare say that this is a disease of civilisation, too many people never really had it hard in their lives and have never really been properly brought up by therir parents and so each one of them is special and only their opinion counts, so they throw a sh*t fit when things don't go their way and so vote for the biggest lunatic and a-hole they can find.
It's politics by screaming toddlers throwing a tantrum.
That is conspiracy and right-wing nuts explained right there.

A Dub in Glasgo

The implosion of the SNP continues, there is something very wrong with the SNP leadership who appear to want everything but independence

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1356239882604191746

Headshot

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The implosion of the SNP continues, there is something very wrong with the SNP leadership who appear to want everything but independence

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1356239882604191746

Any reason why?

A Dub in Glasgo

My view is the SNP has been 'infiltrated' by the same mob that infiltrated the Labour Party who then demanded the Trans issue be the most important thing in the world. The SNP & the Scottish govt are guilty of an appalling plot to jail the previous First Minister after they fell into their pit of prejudices. The impression is now given that the SNP are happy staying as a large fish in the devolved power and hoovering up the majority of MP positions to actually move on independence

The three SNP MPs who have been vocal on a plan B on independence have now been sidelined, two of those MPs signed affidavitts for the recent court challenge on a Section 30 order

https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1348244248911609856

There is a piece in the Scottish edition of the Times which goes into some of the detail (it is behind a paywall but I post it here for those that cannot get past)

Time runs out for a destabilising influence
new
Alex Massie
Monday February 01 2021, 5.00pm, The Times


When Angus Robertson lost his seat at the 2017 general election, he was replaced as leader of the SNP’s Westminster group by Ian Blackford. It was a close-run affair, however, for Blackford defeated his opponent by just a couple of votes. That rival was Joanna Cherry and, albeit in retrospect, this now seems a hinge moment in the modern history of the SNP. Today she was sacked from the SNP’s front bench, summarily tried and convicted on charges of gross disloyalty.

The nationalists’ opponents can only wish that Cherry had prevailed in 2017; those nationalists loyal to Nicola Sturgeon — the overwhelming majority, it should be said — have been in the business of counting their blessings ever since. Blackford might be a bumptious ass but Cherry has for some time been seen as a destabilising, ego-driven presence on the SNP benches.

And, frankly, with good reason. SNP standing orders were amended in 2015 to require MPs to “accept that no member shall within, or outwit the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group”. Critics, forgetting that all parties insist upon certain elementary standards of discipline, deemed this “Stalinist” but given the calibre of some of those elected on the SNP ticket it was also prudent.

Cherry has made little secret of her frustrations with Nicola Sturgeon and the rest of the party leadership. She bristles at being considered an “Alex Salmond ally” but it may safely be said that of those minded to question the Sturgeon-Murrell axis at the head of the party, she is the intelligent one. Peter Murrell is Ms Sturgeon’s husband and also chief executive of the party.

She has pointed out some unwelcome truths, chief of which is that the SNP’s current plans for forcing an independence referendum are a kind of confidence trick played on the party’s own supporters. Those plans are based on the proposition Boris Johnson can be shamed into agreeing a referendum the SNP are convinced he would lose. But why would he do that? And upon what reserves of shame would he be drawing?

I am not persuaded Cherry has any workable alternative to the leadership’s plans but I am equally sure that the recently announced “11 point plan” is a sham designed to pacify restless party members who wonder how and why, if support for independence is above 50 per cent, it isn’t actually happening yet. I mean, Mike Russell — Scottish cabinet secretary for the constitution and external affairs — is in charge of the plan.

So it is little surprise that many of her colleagues suspect that Cherry has been on manoeuvres for some time. They believe she fancies herself as leadership material — which is why she wished to contest Edinburgh Central at the Holyrood election — and she has made little secret of her belief that the Salmond affair will result in Murrell’s departure as chief executive of the SNP and, very possibly, Nicola Sturgeon’s removal from Bute House.

To that extent, she has not been a team player. Plenty of her Westminster colleagues have made representations to Blackford and the leadership asking that something be done about this. Some suspect no more than a handful of MPs are on what might be deemed Team Cherry. Most of her colleagues think she has got what she merits.

And party leaders have the right to hire and fire as they please. Boris Johnson, you may recall, summarily removed the whip from 21 of his MPs, including the likes of Ken Clarke, Philip Hammond and Rory Stewart, after they rebelled against his Brexit proposals in September 2019. So, on the issues of the national question and loyalty to the leadership, I am not convinced Cherry has as many grounds for complaint as her supporters suggest. Politics is a brutal business and fairness doesn’t come into it.

But that is not the only cleavage apparent within the SNP just now. For Cherry is also the highest-profile opponent of the SNP’s planned reforms to the gender recognition act. She is far from the only senior SNP politicians concerned about the party’s trans-rights agenda but she, along with Joan McAlpine, is one of the few to have argued against it publicly and on feminist grounds rather than as an unwelcome distraction from the fiercer urgency of securing independence.

That has made Cherry — and McAlpine — a target. If, as expected, the party adopts a wide-ranging definition of “transphobia”, the dissidents expect moves to be made to suspend them from the party. Legal battles on that front seem entirely possible.

Perhaps it is better to have these disputes aired publicly. They have, after all, been building for some time and we may now dispense with the pretence the SNP is not currently spending more time arguing with itself than against its — admittedly bedraggled — opponents. That is usually a sign that a party has been in power for longer than is good for it or the country it leads and this iteration of the SNP, exhausted and in the grip of its own culture wars, is no exception to that general rule.

Sacking Cherry is both a reminder of Sturgeon’s grip on the party but also, for the first time, a public acknowledgement that hold is neither as tight, nor so secure, as it was. The SNP places a high value on loyalty and, by comparison, discounts intellectual diversity. In one sense then, if also curiously, its division into warring factions is a sign it is just a political party like any other. No better and certainly no different.

And lurking behind it all is a question that dare not be asked for fear that doing so reveals the extent to which it has no answer: what happens if something happens to Nicola?

Water John

That seems an, opinion piece by Alex Massie. He is the Scotland editor of The Spectator. I'm not in a position to dispute any in the article but I do see where the bias of this journalist lies.

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes, I do see Massie's bias, he is a unionist after all. On this though, I don't think he is too far off

Water John

I accept you have it up, in good faith. Certainly the SNP should, if for optics only, have Sturgeon's husband in the position he occupies.

Mr.Nice Guy

Always thought Cherry was one of their most impressive performers. Disappointing to see this infighting when the finishing line is coming into view. I was hoping, akin to SF a century ago, they'd manage to keep things together at least until the pen was put to paper. I hope they don't wind up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

L1011

The Times is not even vaguely close to a fair dealer in providing coverage on this.

BonnieSituation

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Always thought Cherry was one of their most impressive performers. Disappointing to see this infighting when the finishing line is coming into view. I was hoping, akin to SF a century ago, they'd manage to keep things together at least until the pen was put to paper. I hope they don't wind up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Cherry has been agitating for a long while now.

She's very impressive but incredibly impatient.

ancapailldorcha

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Always thought Cherry was one of their most impressive performers. Disappointing to see this infighting when the finishing line is coming into view. I was hoping, akin to SF a century ago, they'd manage to keep things together at least until the pen was put to paper. I hope they don't wind up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

They're nowhere near victory though. They need to win a referendum for which they need to win this year and then they need Johnson's approval. The road to independence is far from straightforward.

pixelburp

Catching up on the thread, am I understanding it right that there's a contention the SNP would prefer endless devolution and internal power over actual independence? That seems a little conspiratorial, no? I get there's the reluctance to support the lawsuit but my reading has been the party wants to put pressure on Westminster to stick or twist, with a continued refusal simply playing into the hands of increasing support for independence. People always want what they can't have after all.

A Dub in Glasgo

The SNP leadership have done very little to advance independence since the Scottish parliament gained a pro-independence majority in 2016. Everything is manana, 'one final push for the elections in 2021 and then we will talk about how we will move past the current Tory insistance of saying No'. They have failed to address the 'once in a generation' narrative that has gained traction from anti-independence side and the media, they have actively attempted to stymie the recent court case

The evidence is there that they are concentrating on bringing in legislation which get very little support from the public in Scotland but bringing it in on the back fo the support people are giving the SNP for independence and a vendetta against Alex Salmond.

Sturgeon is toast when the Salmond case revelations get out and I think she knows it, the action yesterday was a scorched earth type action

Have you seen the 11 point plan released last week in the face of growing anger with their performance on the independence question? very weak stuff

Fr Tod Umptious

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP leadership have done very little to advance independence since the Scottish parliament gained a pro-independence majority in 2016. Everything is manana, 'one final push for the elections in 2021 and then we will talk about how we will move past the current Tory insistance of saying No'. They have failed to address the 'once in a generation' narrative that has gained traction from anti-independence side and the media, they have actively attempted to stymie the recent court case

The evidence is there that they are concentrating on bringing in legislation which get very little support from the public in Scotland but bringing it in on the back fo the support people are giving the SNP for independence and a vendetta against Alex Salmond.

Sturgeon is toast when the Salmond case revelations get out and I think she knows it, the action yesterday was a scorched earth type action

Have you seen the 11 point plan released last week in the face of growing anger with their performance on the independence question? very weak stuff

So if the SNP are not doing enough for the independence cause, who will ?

If there is a serious fallout from the Salmond case then who will drive the independence case forward if the SNP are damaged.

It all plays into the hands of people who don't want a second referendum.

A Dub in Glasgo

There is nobody and that is biggest problem. The SNP will do very little on independence and still most people who support independence will vote for them (myself included). Faction wars are going on in the SNP and the current faction who control the SNP are not really interested in independence, they are pushing another agenda

The Scot Goes Pop blogger has been very pro SNP and even he is now beginning to have questions with regards to their commitment to independence

https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-leadership-need-to-decide-whether.html

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP leadership have done very little to advance independence since the Scottish parliament gained a pro-independence majority in 2016. Everything is manana, 'one final push for the elections in 2021 and then we will talk about how we will move past the current Tory insistance of saying No'. They have failed to address the 'once in a generation' narrative that has gained traction from anti-independence side and the media, they have actively attempted to stymie the recent court case

The evidence is there that they are concentrating on bringing in legislation which get very little support from the public in Scotland but bringing it in on the back fo the support people are giving the SNP for independence and a vendetta against Alex Salmond.

Sturgeon is toast when the Salmond case revelations get out and I think she knows it, the action yesterday was a scorched earth type action

Have you seen the 11 point plan released last week in the face of growing anger with their performance on the independence question? very weak stuff

If they lose another referendum then that's game over. They literally have to do it perfectly. 4 months out from what will be an overwhelming majority for the SNP and a proxy referendum on independence.

How anyone on the hardline side of the SNP think it's a good idea to agitate now is baffling.

pixelburp

Have to agree with that; this is a scenario that's almost wafer thin here. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the case with Salmond but Scotland has a unique situation presented. Brexit opened the door to a second referendum far sooner than even the most optimistic nationalist could have predicted. But yes: balls up the second referendum and that's it. The question will die for 50 years. This is why I've wondered if it won't be 'til polls say 60%+ support that we'll even see the referendum announced; it would have to be a Sure Thing and I just don't believe the polls reflect that.