Scottish independence

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

We know the Scots Nats won't make the same mistake because they didn't make it in 2014. The 2014 indyref was preceded by a lengthy public discussion about these questions, and the publication of a detailed white paper about what an independent Scotland should look like, and how the transition should be managed, plus a draft provisional constitution for an independent Scotland. So they have form here. And they'd be even more likely to do the foundational work properly this time, having seen the shambolic parade of delusion, incompetence and disaster that is Brexit.

I was trying to make a slightly different point. SNP supporters are more engaged, aware and informed than the sorry dunces who voted for Brexit without understanding what it meant.

But the SNP is a broad church on matters other than independence. Almost all have strong views on what Scotland should look like but those views span a wide spectrum. I don't doubt they are ready to start planning for it but when they do, those differences will become clear. It remains to be seen how much and how quickly consensus can be reached to implement a programme for government.

Mr.Nice Guy

The streak of polls for Yes is over.

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1368355742697353216

This is the first poll since the Holyrood inquiry. Question now is whether this is a temporary dip on the back of a bad period for the SNP, or a sign of deeper problems for the independence movement.

A Dub in Glasgo

Although not good for independence, it is not as bad as the unionist media are making out

https://twitter.com/JamesKelly/status/1368373857267105793

Water John

The Savanta poll can only be compared with similar previous polls by the same co. Don't know what those look like. There well could be a dip. The margins either way are tight all the time.
A real effort by Boris to devolve would win the day, but he hasn't the vision to do that.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

The Savanta poll can only be compared with similar previous polls by the same co. Don't know what those look like. There well could be a dip. The margins either way are tight all the time.
A real effort by Boris to devolve would win the day, but he hasn't the vision to do that.

A Survation poll at the end of Feb also had No in the lead, by 1%.

pixelburp

To be fair, the original tweet itself flags the fact the poll was nonstandard. As WJ says we'd need to see this poll against others from the same company. Not that won't stop those advocating unionism breathing a moment of relief.

A Dub in Glasgo

Water John wrote: »

The Savanta poll can only be compared with similar previous polls by the same co..

and using the same methodology. I do not believe Savanta had a previous poll using the same methodology that they used in this one

The latest May election polling is showing a 7 seat majority for pro-independence parties (SNP & Greens)

A Dub in Glasgo

Looks like the poll has been withdrawn so notch it up as another part of the dirty tricks campaign

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1368528804285669377

Water John

You even have a completely false headline in The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/most-scots-would-back-remaining-in-uk-new-poll-suggests

'Most Scots would back remaining'.

That's not true in a long time. A small majority would be a correct headline.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

You even have a completely false headline in The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/most-scots-would-back-remaining-in-uk-new-poll-suggests

'Most Scots would back remaining'.





That's not true in a long time. A small majority would be a correct headline.

Most has a low bar for qualification. Even if 1 billion and 1 yes versus 1 billion no (or vice versa) gives a most result.

Mr.Nice Guy

Polling guru Prof. John Curtice also raising an eyebrow about those polls.

https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1368515604542545920

https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1368520544375734274

Larbre34

Its all irrelevant anyway until after the SP elections and Sturgeon begins putting some meat on the bones of a detailed exit strategy from the UK.

I know they can be a wee bit slow on the uptake, but I suspect the one lesson British people have learned these past five years, is don't vote for something until you see the chapter and verse of it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Trump level manipulation going on this weekend, even after all the inquiry mess, the unionists must be pretty desperate

https://twitter.com/JamesKelly/status/1368567837552435203

Capt'n Midnight

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its all irrelevant anyway until after the SP elections and Sturgeon begins putting some meat on the bones of a detailed exit strategy from the UK.

I know they can be a wee bit slow on the uptake, but I suspect the one lesson British people have learned these past five years, is don't vote for something until you see the chapter and verse of it.

Not this FUD BS again.

Compare this White paper from 2013 with the UK detailed exit strategy from the EU, if you can find one that's realistic or that they've kept to. Right now it's not 100% certain that the EU will ratify the deal.

Most big ticket items can be answered by looking at what happened when Ireland left.


Every Scottish pound in circulation is backed up by deposits of English Sterling. Pegging the currency is a complete non-issue.


The biggest issue is the splitting of assets and debts.

Scotland wouldn't have nuclear weapons so wouldn't have to subsidise Trident (£205Bn + overruns) Not contributing for HS2 (guesstimate £100bn) or NI subsidies (£10Bn a year) would also save a few shekels.

Capt'n Midnight

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its all irrelevant anyway until after the SP elections and Sturgeon begins putting some meat on the bones of a detailed exit strategy from the UK.

Unlike Brexit it'll be business as usual for the short to medium term.

Be very aware that full Brexit hasn't hit the UK as the UK won't be doing full import controls before July. And Covid has hidden the effects of free movement.

It would take time to (re)join the EEA/EFTA/EU if that's what's possible and desired at some future date. Breaking from Sterling isn't going to happen while the rest of the UK is the main trading partner.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I was trying to make a slightly different point. SNP supporters are more engaged, aware and informed than the sorry dunces who voted for Brexit without understanding what it meant.

But the SNP is a broad church on matters other than independence. Almost all have strong views on what Scotland should look like but those views span a wide spectrum. I don't doubt they are ready to start planning for it but when they do, those differences will become clear. It remains to be seen how much and how quickly consensus can be reached to implement a programme for government.

Oh, sure. But if there's a referendum on independence it won't be about a programme for government. It will be about independence.

You could have made exactly the same "broad church' argument about SF in Ireland in the 1918-21 period. In fact, people did make that argument. It was taken for granted that, in an independent Ireland, differing views would emerge as to how the country should be governed, and those views would slog it out in elections and in different groups within Dáil Éireann. None of this was seen as an argument against independence; on the contary, independence was necessary precisely so that Ireland could make democratic choices of this kind.

The SNP will be careful not to position the referendum as a plebiscite about the popularity of the SNP, or a poll to elect a particular Scottish government or to endorse a particular programme of government for Scotland.

What UK debt did the Free State take on when it left? Any? The rUK would hardly pursue an 'economic war' with Scotland like it did with Ireland. Hard to see that in the 21st century where the UK is already much diminished.

Just thinkinking. Didn't the UK become rUK after Ireland bowed out, and if Scotland left it would be rrUk.;)

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

What UK debt did the Free State take on when it left? Any? The rUK would hardly pursue an 'economic war' with Scotland like it did with Ireland. Hard to see that in the 21st century where the UK is already much diminished.

Just thinkinking. Didn't the UK become rUK after Ireland bowed out, and if Scotland left it would be rrUk.;)

The deal in the 1921 Treaty was that the Irish Free State would assume a "fair and equitable" proportion of the UK's public debt and war pension liabilities, the precise proportion to be determined later.

This was not a trivial matter; UK public debt had ballooned during the Great War, and in 1921 stood at 160% of GDP, the highest for over a century. (For comparison, as of 2019, before the Covid pandemic hit, it was 86%; before the global financial crisis of 2008 it was 40%) So this was a big debt that had to be apportioned bewteen the UK and the IFS.

And, to make matters worse, immediate after this was agreed, the Civl War broke out. The IFS spend vastly on the war; something like 30% of revenue was spent either on the National Army or on compensating people for losses suffered in the Civil War.

This gave the new state a huge headache. Already financially strapped because of the Civil War, they didn't know what the resources they could afford to deploy to tackle the many social and economic problems that the state faced, because they didn't know what their share of UK debt would be. And it had the potential to be massive, relative to Irish resources, because of course the UK had been spending on a scale that befits an imperial superpower. So even if the debt was divided up in proportion to the size of the two economies, Ireland was being asked to shoulder a proportion of costs for projects that a small European country like Ireland would never undertake, like running and defending a global empire.

This became tied up with the question of the Boundary Commission, which was supposed to draw the boundary between the IFS and NI in a way that reflected “the wishes of the inhabitants”. The proportion of debt couldn't be decided until it was know how large the Irish economy would be, what resources it would have. And this wouldn't be known until the boundary was fixed. For various reasons the Boundary Commission didn't even meet unil 1924, and then its work was held up by the refusal of the NI government to appoint its commissioner. This delay intensified the pressure (financial and political) on the IFS.

In the event the Commission couldn't come up with a border that could reasaonbly be said to reflect the inhabitants' wishes. They did recommend some minor changes; public opinion in the IFS, and in nationalist areas of NI, had expected much more. Eventually the IFS was persuaded to accept the border as it stood in return for the UK accepting that no part of the public debt/war pension liability would be assigned to the IFS; this represented, in effect, a huge write-down of what had been expected to be IFS public debt, but at the cost of accepting what we now know to have been a state of affairs that would lead to chronic political instability.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Oh, sure. But if there's a referendum on independence it won't be about a programme for government. It will be about independence.

That sounds dangerously close to what the Brexiteers were saying before the referendum. They waved away the hard questions and tried to present leaving the EU as the end of the journey. As they are now discovering, it was only the start.

If (or when) Scotland becomes independent, there won't be much time for celebration. As well as the myriad of issues involved in separating from England/UK, they will need to be ready with all the functions of a modern government - and a clear plan for what to do with them.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

That sounds dangerously close to what the Brexiteers were saying before the referendum. They waved away the hard questions and tried to present leaving the EU as the end of the journey. As they are now discovering, it was only the start.

If (or when) Scotland becomes independent, there won't be much time for celebration. As well as the myriad of issues involved in separating from England/UK, they will need to be ready with all the functions of a modern government - and a clear plan for what to do with them.

No. It's quite different from Brexit.

Scotland already has a government, which was elected on a manifesto, and the day after independence that government will continue to implement its manifesto, and will continue to have a mandate to do so. And that state of affairs can continue until the next election which can, if thought desirable, be accelerated.

Or, more probably, if there's a positive vote in an independence referendum, there'll be an election in the period between the referendum and the completion of independence, and parties can put forward rival visions of what they will do with Scotland's new powers, and the voters can choose between them.

The gap in Brexit wasn't about what post-Brexit Britain would do; it was about what Brexit itself would be. A vote for an independent Scotland is a vote for something; a vote against EU membership is not a vote for anything at all - as witnessed by the fact that some Leave voters thought they were voting for a UK which would be a member of a free trade area stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, and others seem to have thought that they were voting for a UK which would be the North Korea of the Western hemisphere.

In 2014, as I have already pointed out, the Scottish Government published a white paper suggesting a provisional constitution for independent Scotland, a program for seeking Nato and EU membership, for establishing defence forces of a stated size and character, for establishing a Scottish Central Bank and a currency linked to sterling, etc, etc. So the intended structures of independence were known. But they didn't at the same time put forward a conventional election manifesto seeking a mandate for tax cuts, or expenditure increases, or tougher sentences for street crime, or a new hospital for Arbroath, or whatever. And nobody thought that this was needed in order to make a decision about independence; that's what you have elections for.

I don't see why it would be different this time.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

I don't see why it would be different this time.

What would/will be different is that the raison d'etre for Scotland's largest party will no longer exist. The SNP is already populated by left and right leaning members. What sort of manifesto will unite them once their main point of existence is no longer there?

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

What would/will be different is that the raison d'etre for Scotland's largest party will no longer exist. The SNP is already populated by left and right leaning members. What sort of manifesto will unite them once their main point of existence is no longer there?

That's a question that won't arise until their main point of existence is no longer there, which by definition won't be until some time after an independence referendum, so it's not going to be an issue that features very much in the referendum debate.

But it's a good question. One of two things will happen, or may be a bit of both:

1. Within a short time after the achievement of independence, the SNP splits into two (or more) parties with competing visions for how Scotland should be governed.

2. Within a short time after the achievement of independence, the SNP loses vote share to parties with competing visions for how Scotland should be governed.

In other words, there'll be some realignment the Scottish party political system. But this isn't a problem; it's a normal and healthy development and happens from time to time in most democracies.

The UK is probably an exception; its party organisations are strikingly durable by comparison with most countries. This is probably an artefact of the electoral system, which minimises the voice of the voter and maximises that of the party, and thereby provides a huge advantage to established political parties and creates a huge hurdle for new parties that seek to challenge them.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

In other words, there'll be some realignment the Scottish party political system. But this isn't a problem; it's a normal and healthy development and happens from time to time in most democracies.

It will be a problem if the "realignment" delays things like corporation tax or other tax policy, not to mention the considerable paperwork involved in application for EU membership. Scotland's biggest risk is a flight of capital and industry. It needs to be able to show certainty and that can't wait. None of it's competitors (Ireland included) will be hanging around.

serfboard

First Up wrote: »

It will be a problem if the "realignment" delays things like corporation tax or other tax policy, not to mention the considerable paperwork involved in application for EU membership. Scotland's biggest risk is a flight of capital and industry. It needs to be able to show certainty and that can't wait. None of it's competitors (Ireland included) will be hanging around.

It's sounds to me like you are suggesting that the minute after a referendum vote for independence, Scotland will become an independent country cast adrift on the perilous seas of competing countries.

In reality, there will be a long time between an independence vote and independence. In this time there will be a lot of negotiations, and the resulting settlement may itself also be subject to a plebiscite, with possibly differing options.

You make it sound like no country could ever become independent without every single detail being worked out beforehand. The processes around independence are well known and practiced. The former British empire has plenty of experience itself in this regard.

First Up

serfboard wrote:

You make it sound like no country could ever become independent without every single detail being worked out beforehand. The processes around independence are well known and practiced. The former British empire has plenty of experience itself in this regard.

Plenty of countries descended into chaos (and civil war in Ireland) after independence. Africa is full of them as are parts of the former Soviet Union. Bits of the Middle East are still at it.

I'm not arguing against Scottish independence and I'm not suggesting Scotland will have a civil war. But in today's global economy, political and/or economic uncertainty is very bad news. Scotland will have it's work cut re-assuring current and potential investors about access to the English and EU markets. Political in-fighting and stalemate on top of that will do huge damage.

I don't know how long a transition will be negotiated but all political parties will need to speak with one voice from the start. England will waste no time trying to pull companies south and the IDA and it's equivalents across Europe won't be slow either.

Water John

Deleted User wrote: »

What UK debt did the Free State take on when it left? Any? The rUK would hardly pursue an 'economic war' with Scotland like it did with Ireland. Hard to see that in the 21st century where the UK is already much diminished.

Just thinkinking. Didn't the UK become rUK after Ireland bowed out, and if Scotland left it would be rrUk.;)

The Economic War was mainly about Land Annuities, just for clarification.

Don't see a problem with SNP becoming smaller or irrevelant after Ind. They remained monoliths in both SA and Zimbabwe and neither were good.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

It will be a problem if the "realignment" delays things like corporation tax or other tax policy, not to mention the considerable paperwork involved in application for EU membership. Scotland's biggest risk is a flight of capital and industry. It needs to be able to show certainty and that can't wait. None of it's competitors (Ireland included) will be hanging around.

Oh, the realignment would likely play out over a number of years. In the meantime Scotland would continue to be governed, and a Scottish government of any stripe is likely to pursue an EU membership application.

Will independence be economically disruptive? Yes, it will. But this won't primarily be an artefact of the repositioning or breakup of the SNP.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Will independence be economically disruptive? Yes, it will. But this won't primarily be an artefact of the repositioning or breakup of the SNP.

The Scottish government won't cause all the disruption but only the Scottish government can do anything about it.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The Scottish government won't cause all the disruption but only the Scottish government can do anything about it.

Yes, but a realignment of parties doesn't prevent the Scottish government doing anything about it. On the contrary, it facilitates it. That's why it happens.

These kinds of realignments are pretty common in European politics. They are not an impediment to good government. They don't happen so much in the UK because a crapulous electoral system strongly entrenches established parties and makes them all but impervious to new parties that seek to represent voter dissatisfaction. (In fact, the optimal strategy for a such a new party in the UK is not to seek power, but to seek to influence the established parties, as Farage understood very well.)

The apparant domination of Scottish politics by the SNP is, to a significant effect, an artefact of the Westminster electoral system. The SNP holds the overwhelming bulk of Scotlands Westminister seats, and has through the last three general elections. But that's largely irrelevant to the government of Scotland, which is not conducted at Westminster. The picture is very different at Holyrood; the SNP has won a bare majority (of 8 seats) only once, in 2011, and even now governs as a minority government with the support of the Greens. So the notion that Scottish politics will fall to bits and the government be paralysed if the SNP ceases to bestride the narrow world like a colossus doesn't really hold up.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Yes, but a realignment of parties doesn't prevent the Scottish government doing anything about it. On the contrary, it facilitates it. That's why it happens.

Yes, but it needs to happen quickly and clearly enough to allow for positive business and investment decisions. There isn't time for politics to get in the way of that.