/ Low turnout on Indie2refwhatsit march.
Le Sapeur 12 Jan 2020
The Independence people expected 200-300k to turn up for their Glasgow march. Turns out it was 80k. Their excuse for the low turnout was rainy weather. How unexpected! Rain in Glasgow. Did the rain really put off the Independence types or can we read something else into this?
The Watch of Barrisdale 12 Jan 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:
80000 on apissing wet day seems fair enough to me.
DaveHK 12 Jan 2020
My brother in law couldn't go because my mother in law had a funny turn.
girlymonkey 12 Jan 2020
I don't know the reason, but it wasn't just rain! It was crazy high winds and torrential driving rain. It was really wild even by Scottish January standards!
Was that why the turn out was lower? Don't know.
Basemetal 12 Jan 2020
However many folk turn up, what point does it make.... Either way?
marsbar 12 Jan 2020
How is 80 000 people a low turnout?
In reply to girlymonkey:
> I don't know the reason, but it wasn't just rain! It was crazy high winds and torrential driving rain. It was really wild even by Scottish January standards!
No, it was 40 mph gusts with a 20 mph wind, and some rain. Surely if you are passionate about something a bit of rain wouldn't put you off? I didn't say to my dog "sorry, it's a bit wet and windy, no walk for you today'. I just think it was all a bit wishy washy.
In reply to marsbar:
> How is 80 000 people a low turnout?
On an expected 300 000. As the Yanks say, you do the math!
If you expect 200 000+, I suppose.
But if 400,000 turned out and 3,000,000 vote to stay in UK in the next ref, what was the point of the rally?
In reply to Basemetal:
> However many folk turn up, what point does it make.... Either way?
You have hit the nail on the head.... None.
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:
> 80000 on apissing wet day seems fair enough to me.
I know. A rainy day puts you off the cause.
My dog said "no thanks" to me when I offered him out!! Lol.
Maybe people are tired of nationalistic bullshit and division?
> Maybe people are tired of nationalistic bullshit and division?
Possibly. The 'all under one banner' slogan has a bit of the ridiculous about it. The word 'banner' alone speaks volumes. All under?
I completely support independence, but didn't particularly think a march in Glasgow will have any impact on the process. It's votes in the next Holyrood elections which will impact it as far as I can tell. Maybe others think similarly?
tom_in_edinburgh 21:23 Sun
> The Independence people expected 200-300k to turn up for their Glasgow march.
No they didn't. They were hoping for 100k. It was an emergency event to put Boris on notice we'd not be taking NO for an answer n indyref2. They usually have these events planned for months.
> Turns out it was 80k. Their excuse for the low turnout was rainy weather. How unexpected! Rain in Glasgow. Did the rain really put off the Independence types or can we read something else into this?
The weather was truly shit. They had to cancel the planned rally after the march because health and safety wouldn't let them put up the stage due to high winds.
It was a pretty impressive turnout given the conditions.
> I completely support independence, but didn't particularly think a march in Glasgow will have any impact on the process. It's votes in the next Holyrood elections which will impact it as far as I can tell. Maybe others think similarly?
Alister Jack is now saying SNP winning Holyrood election in 2021 would not be a mandate for Indyref2 and it won't be allowed in Nicola Sturgeon's lifetime. The Tories have not won a national election in Scotland since before the second world war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51082184
Le Sapeur 21:37 Sun
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
No, you are wrong. They estimated the turnout to be 200-300,000. Now if I organised a dinner party for 30 and only 8 turned up I consider that a little bit embarrassing.
Scottish people not going out because it was raining! Really?
DaveHK 21:43 Sun
You're sounding like a bit of a stuck record. Are you hoping to provoke some sort of response?
In reply to DaveHK:
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep............
petenebo 22:00 Sun
> Now if I organised a dinner party for 30 and only 8 turned up I consider that a little bit embarrassing.
And more than a little unsurprising.
ena sharples 22:01 Sun
Boris says no. Which he will. The End. Can only see a declaration of UDI shifting anything, which should be interesting.
Naechi 22:05 Sun
In reply to Le Sapeur
> Scottish people not going out because it was raining! Really?
Maybe it was the English, Welsh, Irish and EU nationals that stayed home because of the rain. I know as many non-scottish independence supporters as I do Scottish, Scottish independence supporters
kolkrabe 22:07 Sun
Regardless of the predictions, 80k for a hastily arranged event on a properly squally pishy day in January is a pretty decent turn out I'd say. My own partner and our 6 month old didn't go because of the weather and I dare say others were in the same boat. I also know a number of elderly folk and others with disabilities who would have went if the weather hadn't been quite so wild (and it was wild), I guess a few more years of Tory policy and they might not get the chance...
"> However many folk turn up, what point does it make.... Either way?
You have hit the nail on the head.... None."
I imagine people said the same during various protests over national sovereignty or civil rights movements etc. Marching/Protesting may seem fruitless if you don't agree with the cause but it raises awareness and brings people together. It's healthy in a democracy as long as it's peaceful!
Archy Styrigg 22:21 Sun
To all those here that think these rallies, protests, petitions etc., whatever the turnouts or number of signatories, make one iota of a difference, look back at the 2 or 3 years.
6 million plus petition for a 2nd EUref, 1,000,000 plus marches in central London, for two ... effect ... absolutely f*ck all.
subtle 22:36 Sun
> No, it was 40 mph gusts with a 20 mph wind, and some rain.
Really, I thought it was worse than that across Scotland and people perhaps chose not to travel due to that fact.
Glad you walked your dog, apart from that did you venture out yourself or did you sit on the sofa all day?
Jim Fraser 02:05 Mon
MSM makes a huge fuss if 50 folk turn up waving union jacks but 80000 waving saltires just doesn't make the grade. More than slightly weird.
Generally, you are only going to get 5 to 10% of those who care about important political issues motivated to join in something like this, on a sunny day. And then only to go the same distance as an ordinary weekend day out, which might be 30 to 40 miles. The people further away attend at a much lower rate. The people I know who regularly go to these are between 160 and 270 miles from Glasgow.
If you didn't go to school and can't read a map then I suppose you might imagine that everybody can get on the bus and be having a hot shower at home in 30 minutes but that is not the case.
kemmar 02:48 Mon
You clearly have an agenda. If you live in Scotland and you get even some of your information from outside the mainstream media propaganda you will be aware of the momentum of the independence movement. And you will be aware of the decimation of the Tories in Scotland who ran their campaign purely on 'vote for us to stop Indyref2'. Your persistence on here suggests you are in some form of denial. You werent one of the 50 or so Union Jack wavers in the side street were you?
DaveHK 07:12 Mon
> Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep............
Le Trolleur...
RomTheBear 07:40 Mon
It doesn't matter what Holyrood thinks - in fact it doesn't matter what Scottish people think.
Seems to me these people are deluded, Scotland has NO sway on U.K. policy, NO influence, NO power, and their voice does NOT count, no matter how loud they shout.
The only way Scotland becomes independent is when the ENGLISH electorate decides it had enough of the jocks. Don't kid yourself thinking that the British state gives a single fuck about self determination, it has a long, very long track record of not giving one.
wercat 08:59 Mon
In reply to kemmar:
Well of course an agenda - in trench warfare it is the sappers who undermine your defences, mining deep and planting underground bombs, listening to your conversations on Fullerphones- It's a great indicator of one who is involved in social engineering and undermining
summo 09:05 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Seems to me these people are deluded, Scotland has NO sway on U.K. policy, NO influence, NO power, and their voice does NOT count, no matter how loud they shout.
I agree, if you ignore the devolved matters of;
Fisheries, agriculture and forestry
Powers to vary taxation
Tourism and economic development
Many parts of transport
And a few more.....
So yes, Scotland has no control over anything and it's all the fault of Westminster.
graeme jackson 09:10 Mon
In reply to subtle:
> Really, I thought it was worse than that across Scotland and people perhaps chose not to travel due to that fact.
I was out and about between Lanark, Glasgow and Cumbernauld through the day and it wasn't too bad. Not windy enough to move the car and a few heavy showers dotted through an otherwise dismally moist day. earlier in the week was a different story though.
jkarran 09:39 Mon
> The only way Scotland becomes independent is when the ENGLISH electorate decides it had enough of the jocks. Don't kid yourself thinking that the British state gives a single f*ck about self determination, it has a long, very long track record of not giving one.
And yet the empire is now little more than memories.
In reply to jkarran:
> And yet the empire is now little more than memories.
Decolonisation happened only when the colonies became bothersome to the English.
> Surely if you are passionate about something a bit of rain wouldn't put you off? I didn't say to my dog "sorry, it's a bit wet and windy, no walk for you today'.
I think you're misinterpreting your own analogy.
I think it shows that at least 80,000 people in Scotland feel as strong a connection to independence as you feel to your dog. If I was pro-union I would be a. bloody glad it wasn't 300,000 who felt that way and b. shitting myself that as many as 80,000 do.
Flinticus 09:52 Mon
In reply to graeme jackson:
I was out in the morning with my dog in Pollok Park for an hour and a half: the rain was on and off, mostly on and at times it was torrential. I met some friends also walking their dogs, many of their waterproofs having failed to keep them dry. Not a day for a march.
Afterwards I went into the city centre, to get a map case & record, so had to cross through the march several times. What struck me was, despite everyone looking soaked, the atmosphere was really upbeat, full of smiles and good natured. The only anger / bad tempers I saw was from the small contingent of unionists (maybe 100-150) near Central Station.
In reply to summo:
> I agree, if you ignore the devolved matters of;
> Law and order
> Fisheries, agriculture and forestry
> Local government
> Health and social services
> Housing
> Powers to vary taxation
> Tourism and economic development
> Many parts of transport
> And a few more.....
And all of which can be abolished / overridden by a simple majority vote in Westminster. Moreover you are missing the point, it isn't about control of policy areas, it is about escaping an increasingly authoritarian, illiberal, isolationist, government.
> Decolonisation happened only when the colonies became bothersome to the English.
Yes. I don't suppose Scotland will have it easy if they do decide to part but the idea England can cling to it indefinitely without Scottish consent is patently nonsense.
> Yes. I don't suppose Scotland will have it easy if they do decide to part but the idea England can cling to it indefinitely without Scottish consent is patently nonsense.
Explain why then. There is absolutely nothing preventing England keeping control over Scotland as long as they want, democratic consent or not. And as long as there is no tangible benefit of letting it go they will never do so.
> And all of which can be abolished / overridden by a simple majority vote in Westminster.
Can they? Scottish education or law order... ?
> Moreover you are missing the point, it isn't about control of policy areas.
At 0740 you said Scotland had no sway or influence, I just listed where it does.
Isolationist.. you mean like Scotland leaving the UK?
> Can they? Scottish education or law order... ?
Yes. Westminster can always override Scottish policy. I'm surprised you don't even understand the constitution of the UK. In fact the whole Scottish parliament could be scrapped with a simple majority vote in the house of commons.
> At 0740 you said Scotland had no sway or influence, I just listed where it does.
You know very well that we were talking about its constitutional position. That happens to be true on other areas too though.
> Isolationist.. you mean like Scotland leaving the UK?
No, I mean like stopping reciprocal freedom of movement with the EU, for example.
Northern Star 10:57 Mon
And here we go . . . . . . . again . . . . . . . .
rogerwebb 11:01 Mon
> It doesn't matter what Holyrood thinks - in fact it doesn't matter what Scottish people think.
The 2014 referendum doesn't really fit with that argument. Perhaps you are overstating your case?
tom_in_edinburgh 11:02 Mon
Yes they can. For example, it is written into the Treaty of Union that the Court of Session is the supreme court for Scotland and cannot be overruled by courts in London. But the English have put the Supreme Court for the UK in London and it can overrule the Court of Session.
Scotland was forced to send police to London when they were worried about Brexit protests and the Extinction Rebellion. The SNP are nominally in control of justice but they couldn't stop it.
Westminster could take power for Education back if they want. There's a convention that they won't take powers back from Holyrood without consent but they took a bunch of Holyrood powers which were delegated to the EU back to Westminster last year without even allowing a debate in parliament.
I would say it is not unlikely they will take back some control over education in the next few years- they'll say it is 'failing' and needs 'special measures', then they'll impose a unionist curriculum to try and indoctrinate kids - this sounds far fetched but it is exactly what they are doing with their UK citizenship test and the logical consequence of the flag waving rhetoric we are getting now.
They will almost certainly take back some control over health because Scotland is doing so much better than England it is becoming an embarrassment and they need control of the NHS in Scotland so as to be able to do a trade deal with the US which privatises it. This set of Brexiteer Tories are total c*nts and with a majority of 80 they are intent on fulfilling all their wet dreams. Even with their majority of 80 they decided to give Westminster MPs an extra months holiday so parliament wouldn't have so much time to hold them to account.
Scotland has not voted for the Tories in a national election since before the WWII more than half the time it gets a Tory government. Right now it has zero influence on Westminster, the Tories walk out or loudly mock any SNP MP that opens their mouth. New speaker is a Tory stooge and doesn't give a sh*t.
To join the EU. It's the Tory UK that is isolationist, xenophobic and backward looking.
In reply to rogerwebb:
> The 2014 referendum doesn't really fit with that argument. Perhaps you are overstating your case?
It perfectly does. Only reason Westminster allowed a referendum in 2014 is because Cameron thought he would win by a big margin. They will never make that mistake again.
what the hex 11:04 Mon
>.... Moreover you are missing the point, it isn't about control of policy areas, it is about escaping an increasingly authoritarian, illiberal, isolationist, government.
That old trope. Want to isolate yourself from the isolationists do you? Heard that before somewhere circa 2016.
So long! And thanks for all the fish! 😆
> >.... Moreover you are missing the point, it isn't about control of policy areas, it is about escaping an increasingly authoritarian, illiberal, isolationist, government.
> That old trope. Want to isolate yourself from the isolationists do you? Heard that before somewhere circa 2016.
Nope, I don't want to prevent english people from coming freely to Scotland. I just don't want them to force us to not allow EU citizens to come freely to Scotland and remove us the right to do the same. Simples.
> I would say it is not unlikely they will take back some control over education
Based on what evidence, how long has Scotland had independent education, I'd say there is just above zero chance of it changing.
> They will almost certainly take back some control over health
Any evidence if this?
> To join the EU.
Or so a few senior snp politicians can have more power themselves. It's all snp scaremongering.
> Based on what evidence, how long has Scotland had independent education, I'd say there is just above zero chance of it changing.
It doesn't even matter who makes the education policy if you don't have teachers.
Fair enough, I'd be of the same mind if I had such an opportunity.
Did you like my fish joke? It references Douglas Adams and also the Scottish fishing industry.
The Watch of Barrisdale 11:39 Mon
I have voted for Independence since 1974 - I can wait a wee while longer.
> It perfectly does. Only reason Westminster allowed a referendum in 2014 is because Cameron thought he would win by a big margin. They will never make that mistake again.
I think it had rather more to with respect for the clear mandate won by the SNP.
If the 'British State' really has so little respect for democracy why do we have a Scottish Parliament? It is certainly not a perfectly organised state and is badly in need of reform but it hardly fits the demonic model you suggest. I notice that 800000 people marched through one of it's cities in favour dimemembering it. Yet there was no state violence, no attempt to prevent the march and no denying it happened.
Does it do your cause any good to present it in such a simplistic way? There are rational arguments for independence and presenting those without demonising those, or their representatives, who disagree with you might be more productive.
Remember 28% of votes cast by Scots in the recent election were for the Conservatives and 55% for parties in favour of the union. Are those voters not Scots too?
> Remember 28% of votes cast by Scots in the recent election were for the Conservatives and 55% for parties in favour of the union. Are those voters not Scots too?
They are Scots, but so far as SNP supposed mandates go, their views don't count apparently!
Naechi 12:10 Mon
> 55% for parties in favour of the union. Are those voters not Scots too?
54% the greens made gains...
Harry Jarvis 12:13 Mon
Quite so. There is no electoral advantage in England taking any interest in Scottish education. Even Scottish Tories would be hard pushed to say there was any point in handing authority over Scottish education to Westminster.
> It doesn't even matter who makes the education policy if you don't have teachers.
Does Scotland need help training it's teachers? Perhaps education control should return to Westminster?
Or perhaps if the snp focussed on delivering all the services it has devolved power for, instead of continually banging the independence drum, then everyone in scotland would benefit.
Of course that would not go in the snp's favour, better to run down services and blame Westminster.
Eric9Points 12:20 Mon
Actually it was just over 10000 that turned up. The organisers of these marches always inflate the numbers vastly.
Some absolutely disgraceful banners being paraded referring to 'Tory Scum" etc, one of which our justice minister marched under when he should have been reporting it as a hate crime.
> Explain why then. There is absolutely nothing preventing England keeping control over Scotland as long as they want, democratic consent or not. And as long as there is no tangible benefit of letting it go they will never do so.
As with NI and most of the other colonies once the tide of public opinion turns and organised opposition coalesces the tangible benefit comes in restoring or better, preserving security and stability. A reasonable UK government would recognise that before actual fire-fighting becomes necessary. We don't have a reasonable government but that won't stop public opinion in Scotland shifting and conflict looming, in fact it likely speeds the process. Scotland is going to have to fight for independence one way or another, brexit and a decade of Johnson may just give them the stomach for it.
Robert Durran 12:34 Mon
But the tory voters are all scum and the unionist voters are evil anglo-sympathising traitors, so obviously their votes do not count.
> I think it had rather more to with respect for the clear mandate won by the SNP.
Bullshit. The mandate is even clearer this time around. This all had to do with Cameron being a total arrogant idiot who though this would be an opportunity to kill off the SNP in Scotland. They will never make that mistake again.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is any prospect of the UK government giving Scotland the right to self determination if the SNP wins again the next Scottish election ? Because I'd bet a a grand against that in a blink.
> If the 'British State' really has so little respect for democracy why do we have a Scottish Parliament? It is certainly not a perfectly organised state and is badly in need of reform but it hardly fits the demonic model you suggest. I notice that 800000 people marched through one of it's cities in favour dimemembering it. Yet there was no state violence, no attempt to prevent the march and no denying it happened.
There was not state violence because as it stands, the independence movement represents no threat whatsoever to the UK government, not matter how big it is. They can simply just ignore all of their demands.
> Does it do your cause any good to present it in such a simplistic way? There are rational arguments for independence and presenting those without demonising those, or their representatives, who disagree with you might be more productive.
NO NO NO. I have NOTHING against those who oppose independence. I myself do not want it.
All I want is that the the Scottish people should have the power to decide by themselves if they want to stay or leave the UK.
> Remember 28% of votes cast by Scots in the recent election were for the Conservatives and 55% for parties in favour of the union. Are those voters not Scots too? ]
Who ever said they aren't ? You are just making shit up.
In reply to Robert Durran:
What amuses me is that the SNP have spent years passing on austerity to the Scots and at the same time criticise the WM government.
But let's be clear about this the reason those marchers shower supporters of another party with vile abuse has nothing to do with their politics other than the fact they stand between them and the only goal their party is united on, independence. Labour, as the majority party in Scotland in 2015 was subjected to a vicious smear campaign as well.
What bothers me is that if this sort of behaviour is tolerated by their leaders political violence will start to be seen as justified by some of their followers.
In reply to Eric9Points:
I'll keep using the ballot box, thanks very much!
> As with NI and most of the other colonies once the tide of public opinion turns and organised opposition coalesces the tangible benefit comes in restoring or better, preserving security and stability. A reasonable UK government would recognise that before actual fire-fighting becomes necessary. We don't have a reasonable government but that won't stop public opinion in Scotland shifting and conflict looming, in fact it likely speeds the process. Scotland is going to have to fight for independence one way or another, brexit and a decade of Johnson may just give them the stomach for it.
But that's exactly what I am saying. Scotland will never get independence just by wishing it very hard. If it happens at all it will be because the English electorate would see the cost of keeping Scotland in the UK outweighing the benefits.
> But the tory voters are all scum and the unionist voters are evil anglo-sympathising traitors, so obviously their votes do not count.
This may be your opinion, it isn't what most independence supporters I know think at all.
> Bullshit. The mandate is even clearer this time around. This all had to do with Cameron being a total arrogant idiot who though this would be an opportunity to kill off the SNP in Scotland. They will never make that mistake again.
The mandate in the 2014 referendum came from an unequivocal commitment to such a referendum in the SNP Scottish Parliament elections. It was unarguable. The current claimed mandate comes from an equivocal commitment that resulted in a minority government and an even more qualified commitment by the Greens. Only one of the tests has been met. The recent election was not fought solely on independence so much so my SNP MP didn't mention either independence or a referendum in his leaflets. This claimed mandate is not unarguable.
> Are you seriously suggesting that there is any prospect of the UK government giving Scotland the right to self determination if the SNP wins again the next Scottish election ? Because I'd bet a a grand against that in a blink.
Yes I do(not to the bet, Alastair Jack may have more to him than I think. Confident but not that confident!)
> There was not state violence because as it stands, the independence movement represents no threat whatsoever to the UK government, not matter how big it is. They can simply just ignore all of their demands.
I note that there was no state violence in 2014 either when there certainly was a threat to the UK.
> NO NO NO. I have NOTHING against those who oppose independence. I myself do not want it.
That is well concealed!
> All I want is that the the Scottish people should have the power to decide by themselves if they want to stay or leave the UK.
I think we have that.
> Who ever said they aren't ? You are just making shit up.
No, you tend to argue on the basis that the British State /Westminster /occasionally the English are keeping Scotland within the Union against its will. In doing so you gloss over the essentially 50/50 split in Scottish opinion and hence appear to forget that those voters (who favour the union) are Scottish too.
> I'll keep using the ballot box, thanks very much!
Likewise. As long as we all do that we will be fine whatever the outcome. (Although our opinions as to which outcome will be finer may differ)
> Yes I do(not to the bet, Alastair Jack may have more to him than I think. Confident but not that confident!)
Then you live in cuckoo land my friend. In fact you are probably already disproved as the Tories have already said they will refuse any sort of second indyref whatever happens in the Scottish elections.
Also the fact you are not taking the bet suggest that deep down, you know very well I'm right.
> I note that there was no state violence in 2014 either when there certainly was a threat to the UK.
They were taken off guard. I give it barely a decade before supporting Scottish Independence becomes very dangerous indeed for your prospects.
All it takes is a few idiotic extremists to do something stupid, and then it's very easy for the government to justify using its sweeping powers to screw anybody who has the wrong political inclination.
I suggest you ask the Irish. Internment rings a bell ?
> I think we have that.
Unfortunately that's undeniably, constitutionally, false. The simple fact is that Scotland cannot leave the UK or run an independence referendum unless the UK Parliament gives its authorisation.
> No, you tend to argue on the basis that the British State /Westminster /occasionally the English are keeping Scotland within the Union against its will.
Again, you are completely making shit up and letting you political view on the subject interfere with your understanding of the facts.
I have NEVER said the English are keeping Scotland in the Union against their will. All I've said is that whatever Scotland will in the matter is, it doesn't actually matter, as they are not the ones making the decision.
It is something that the supporter of Scottish independence have not understood yet, and that is exactly why they will keep losing.
Gabbish ?
> That is well concealed!
The main thing I am advocating for here is for Scotland to have the right to leave the UK if it wants to, according to its own requirements, just like the UK always had the right to leave the EU if it wanted to.
At the end of the day, this is the best rule of thumb to detect if an institution is democratic or not, if you can't change its government or leave it without resorting to violence, then it isn't a democracy.
What do you think of the new statement by our colonial masters on indyref2. They've gone from 'not in a generation' to 'not in Nicola Sturgeon's lifetime' and they've explicitly said winning the Holyrood election in 2021 is not a mandate.
So the new Tory position is no indyref ever no matter how many elections the SNP wins. Is that acceptable?
> Gabbish ?
Completely off thread, but it was established some time ago that the word you were looking for was capisce. I'm slightly surprised (only slightly, mind you) that you are continuing to display your ignorance.
> This may be your opinion, it isn't what most independence supporters I know think at all.
Of course it is not my opinion, nor of most independence supporters and certainly not the official line of the independence movement and the SNP which is clearly inclusive and internationalist. However, it is undeniable that there is a nasty xenophobic element within the independence movement (it rears its ugly head especially on social media) and I'm not convinced that the mainstream movement is doing enough to squash it. While I am undecided about independence (I think my decision will depend significantly on the outcome of the UK's Brexit negotiations, so I definitely don't want an early referendum), many of my friends are unionists and some even vote tory (and are not scum) and a lot of them are seriously concerened about the nasty nationalist element, especially those who are English and living in Scotland. I think it is essential that the nationalist movement make every effort to reassure unionists and avoid the sort of divisiveness that Brexit has caused in the UK.
> Obviously.
> What amuses me is that the SNP have spent years passing on austerity to the Scots and at the same time criticise the WM government.
Of course they have, the Scottish Government is not allowed to borrow. It has to balance its budget. If the Tories do austerity in England the funding to Scotland falls proportionally. The Scottish Government can modify where the austerity falls but they can't do anything other than pass it on.
> Then you live in cuckoo land my friend. In fact you are probably already disproved as the Tories have already said they will refuse any sort of second indyref whatever happens in the Scottish elections.
I don't think they will hold that line
> Also the fact you are not taking the bet suggest that deep down, you know very well I'm right.
No it shows a) I am never certain that I am right b) I don't have a £1000 lying around
> They were taken off guard. I give it barely a decade before supporting Scottish Independence becomes very dangerous indeed for your prospects.
> All it takes is a few idiotic extremists to do something stupid, and then it's very easy for the government to justify using its sweeping powers to screw anybody who has the wrong political inclination.
> I suggest you ask the Irish. Internment rings a bell ?
I don't think there any but the most tenuous parallels between the Troubles and their near millennium of gestation and the current Scottish independence movement.
> Unfortunately that's undeniably, constitutionally, false. The simple fact is that Scotland cannot leave the UK or run an independence referendum unless the UK Parliament gives its authorisation.
Politically it would be exceptionally difficult to prevent such a referendum.
> Again, you are completely making shit up and letting you political view on the subject interfere with your understanding of the facts.
> I have NEVER said the English are keeping Scotland in the Union against their will. All I've said is that whatever Scotland will in the matter is, it doesn't actually matter, as they are not the ones making the decision.
You appeared to take that view this morning.
> The main thing I am advocating for here is for Scotland to have the right to leave the UK if it wants to, according to its own requirements, just like the UK always had the right to leave the EU if it wanted to.
> At the end of the day, this is the best rule of thumb to detect if an institution is democratic or not, if you can't change its government or leave it without resorting to violence, then it isn't a democracy.
Well yes.
Bollocks.
> What do you think of the new statement by our colonial masters on indyref2. They've gone from 'not in a generation' to 'not in Nicola Sturgeon's lifetime' and they've explicitly said winning the Holyrood election in 2021 is not a mandate.
> So the new Tory position is no indyref ever no matter how many elections the SNP wins. Is that acceptable?
That position is untenable if an election is won, with a majority of votes cast, on a manifesto explicitly calling for a referendum.
I don't know where you get the 'colonial masters' bit from though.
> That position is untenable if an election is won, with a majority of votes cast, on a manifesto explicitly calling for a referendum.
It makes no difference how many elections the SNP wins. They aren't even bothered making up unrealistic criteria any more. They're just saying flat no forever.
You keep saying that, but very thin on the substance. WHY exactly would it be untenable ?
If you look at this without rose tinted glasses the situation is very simple:
1) The english electorate, by and large, does not give a single fuck about what the Scottish people do. I am not blaming them for it it's just a reality.
2) Thew tories don't need the Scottish electorate to win elections anymore. In fact, if they tried to please the Scottish Electorate, they would lose the core of their electorate in England.
As such, I see no rational reason as to why the UK government would bother giving Scotland the right to decide its own future.
Boris Johnson also said he would die in a ditch...
Why believe him, or his appointee now?
> Well yes.
Well it wouldn't have escaped you that the UK government always categorically refused to hand over the power to organise referendums to the Scottish parliament.
It completely destroys your argument that they actually give a single f*ck about the right of the Scottish people to decide of their own future.
> Well it wouldn't have escaped you that the UK government always categorically refused to hand over the power to organise referendums to the Scottish parliament.
> It completely destroys your argument that they actually give a single f*ck about the right of the Scottish people to decide of their own future.
Handing power, or sovereignty, to part of a state to hold a constitutional referendum on a discrete occasion is one thing, handing that power over indefinitely is to hand over sovereignty. I suspect that you will struggle to find a state that has within Europe.
That the UK has done that on the basis of a vote for a devolved administration makes it an exception.
> You keep saying that, but very thin on the substance. WHY exactly would it be untenable ?
Because it would be the most effective way to mobilise for support of a non sanctioned referendum. That would result in chaos. Conceivably it could result in some interesting action in the Supreme Court and most of all what would the UK government have to gain? For the reasons you set out below, not a lot.
> If you look at this without rose tinted glasses the situation is very simple:
> 1) The english electorate, by and large, does not give a single f*ck about what the Scottish people do. I am not blaming them for it it's just a reality.
> 2) Thew tories don't need the Scottish electorate to win elections anymore. In fact, if they tried to please the Scottish Electorate, they would lose the core of their electorate in England.
> Handing power, or sovereignty, to part of a state to hold a constitutional referendum on a discrete occasion is one thing, handing that power over indefinitely is to hand over sovereignty. I suspect that you will struggle to find a state that has within Europe.
Every country in the EU has the right to leave the EU, and each has the right to take this decision according to their own constitutional requirement. Which is exactly what the UK did. This is how any sort of democratic union should work.
But in the end the reality of your position is now quite clear. You don't think the Scottish people should have the right to decide their own future, unless we give them "permission" to do so whenever convenient. That is I believe the point of view of the government and most of the English electorate.
And that ties back exactly into my central argument: The Scots will get a say on their future, only and only if the English electorate decides it. Many independence supporters have not awoken to this reality.
> Because it would be the most effective way to mobilise for support of a non sanctioned referendum. That would result in chaos.
A non-sanctioned referendum would most likely be illegal, or would easily be made so, at which point they can simply put Nicola Sturgeon and co behind bars if they tried to organise one anyway. In any case a sanctioned referendum, even if it happened, would simply be totally ignored by Westminster and would be a joke.
Nicola Sturgeon knows this very well.
You're not very convincing I'm afraid.
> Conceivably it could result in some interesting action in the Supreme Court and most of all what would the UK government have to gain? For the reasons you set out below, not a lot.
The supreme court could do absolutely nothing here. At the end of the day the constitutional system of the Uk is that the UK parliament is supreme.
> Every country in the EU has the right to leave the EU, and each has the right to take this decision according to their own constitutional requirement. Which is exactly what the UK did. This is how any sort of democratic union should work.
> But in the end the reality of your position is now quite clear. You don't think the Scottish people should have the right to decide their own future, unless we give them "permission" to do so whenever convenient.
Well I am sorry if you think that is my position. I can't have explained myself well enough.
My position is that if there is a clear mandate for a referendum in a Scottish Parliament election then there should be such a referendum.
> Well I am sorry if you think that is my position. I can't have explained myself well enough.
> My position is that if there is a clear mandate for a referendum in a Scottish Parliament election then there should be such a referendum.
There already IS a clear mandate for another referendum in the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament already VOTED in favour of a second referendum back in 2017.
But that isn't the point. The point is whether you think the Scots should have the power to leave the UK if they wish to do so without having to ask for the permission of the UK government
> A non-sanctioned referendum would most likely be illegal, or would easily be made so, at which point they can simply put Nicola Sturgeon and co behind bars if they tried to organise one anyway. In any case a sanctioned referendum, even if it happened, it would simply be totally ignored by Westminster.
Can you really forsee tha
> The supreme court could do absolutely nothing here. At the end of the day the constitutional system of the Uk is that the UK parliament is supreme.
There is theory and there is political reality.
> Can you really forsee tha
It's rather crystal clear to me. A non-sanctionned referendum would be completely ignored by the UK government, the result would have zero legal value, and could simply not be implemented.
> There is theory and there is political reality.
And the political reality is that, as it stands, what happens in Scotland or what Scottish people think does not matter one single bit to your average English voters. I'm not blaming them for it but it's a reality.
> That isn't the point. The point is whether you think the Scots should have the power to leave the UK if they wish to do so without having to ask for the permission of the UK government.
It is the referendum that requires the permission of the UK government. If that is won then what happens next is entirely up to the Scottish government.
You may well be right about the ignoring, I was referring to the imprisoning.
> It is the referendum that requires the permission of the UK government. If that is won then what happens next is entirely up to the Scottish government.
Nobody said otherwise, in fact this is my point: The Scots need to ask for the permission of the UK government if they want to put their own future to a referendum. That is what is, in my view, democratically unacceptable.
Imagine for a second the outrage if the UK had to ask the EU's permission to organise an EU referendum.
> You may well be right about the ignoring, I was referring to the imprisoning.
Why not ? If Scottish ministers organised such a referendum it would most likely be illegal, or made so. In which case they would be sued, and possibly face prison.
This is exactly what happened in Catalunia.
The EU is not a sovereign state. It is a treaty organisation, like Nato. An entirely different creature. If it did become a state then yes a member would have to ask permission to leave. The USA had a civil war on this point (amongst others)
Spain has a written constitution and rather more draconian laws about it presumably owing to its 19th and 20th century troubles. Hence the extradition of the St Andrews Professor is going through the courts not being passed without question. The defence to the extradition being that the alleged offences are not crimes known to the law of Scotland (or to the rest of the UK).
> The EU is not a sovereign state. It is a treaty organisation, like Nato. An entirely different creature. If it did become a state then yes a member would have to ask permission to leave. The USA had a civil war on this point (amongst others)
It doesn't really matter what name you call it. The point is that Scottish people cannot leave the UK without asking for permission, and what they think about it doesn't really matter.
it seems to me that you in fact entirely agree with my central argument: Scotland cannot decide of it own future unless Westminster agrees to it, hence, unless the English electorates agrees to it.
Unless independence supporter wake up to this, they are doomed to fail. They are focusing on convincing Scottish people that independence is right for them, and that is completely pointless. because what the Scottish people think does not matter.
Instead they should be trying to convince the English electorate that they need to let Scotland go.
> Spain has a written constitution and rather more draconian laws about it presumably owing to its 19th and 20th century troubles.
Spanish written constitution actually puts Catalonia in a stronger position than Scotland is in the UK.
In the UK, all that Westminster would have to do is to pass a quick one line bill, with a simple majority, making the holding of a Scottish independence referendum unlawful. I suspect it would probably not even be needed as probably already unlawful, but if they needed to make it clearer, it would be very easy.
You mean in the same way Westminster is running down the NHS to make private health care more appealing? SNP are doing remarkably well in delivering services whilst operating under the financial constraints of Tory austerity. Of course it depends on ones own level of hypocrisy or selective blindness as to how well whichever service they are using is performing in terms of the UK. And not forgetting which newspaper one is partial to, which could be almost any daily as 99% of them will tell you the opposite.
> Does Scotland need help training it's teachers? Perhaps education control should return to Westminster?
> Or perhaps if the snp focussed on delivering all the services it has devolved power for, instead of continually banging the independence drum, then everyone in scotland would benefit.
> Of course that would not go in the snp's favour, better to run down services and blame Westminster.
> It doesn't really matter what name you call it. The point is that Scottish people cannot leave the UK without asking for permission, and what they think about it doesn't really matter.
2014 indicates that what they think about it does matter.
Clearly you have a rather more dystopian vision of the UK than I do and less faith in its institutions. You are not going to convince me or I you that our views are correct. We may find out whose views were closer to reality in the next few years. For now, as I have just arrived in Portree for work as much as anything, let's give it a break.
In reply to Naechi:
You are quite right, I was very nearly one of them. Apologies.
> Why not ? If Scottish ministers organised such a referendum it would most likely be illegal, or made so. In which case they would be sued, and possibly face prison.
And then all hell would break loose ending up with England getting fed up with the cost and leaving just like they left every other country where it has gone that far. I would like to think the current set of Tories are not stupid enough to lock up Scotland's elected government but they might be.
> But let's be clear about this the reason those marchers shower supporters of another party with vile abuse has nothing to do with their politics other than the fact they stand between them and the only goal their party is united on, independence. Labour, as the majority party in Scotland in 2015 was subjected to a vicious smear campaign as well.
> What bothers me is that if this sort of behaviour is tolerated by their leaders political violence will start to be seen as justified by some of their followers.
You dont perchance contribute to the Daily Telegraph comments sections on articles pertaining to Scotland? Nearly every one of them is filled with the same distortions and untruths. And i would remind you that all these marches attended by many thousands have resulted in no independence supporter arrests. They have been the epitome of peaceful protest. And you are the epitome of a bigot.
> The only way Scotland becomes independent is when the ENGLISH electorate decides it had enough of the jocks. ...
How hard can that be to achieve?!
> You mean in the same way Westminster is running down the NHS to make private health care more appealing?
You get the healthcare service you pay for. The UK per capita has a lower level funding than most of Europe, pay more tax, have better care.
As an aside there is little real evidence it will ever by privatised by any party.
> SNP are doing remarkably well in delivering services whilst operating under the financial constraints of Tory austerity.
No. Because of the Barnet formula Scotland receives more money per capita than England or Wales. So they aren't really doing well relatively speaking.
> Of course it depends on ones own level of hypocrisy or selective blindness as to how well whichever service they are using is performing in terms of the UK.
Indeed. I'm sure the snp communication department suffers from selective bias too.
> 2014 indicates that what they think about it does matter.
The only reason we had a referendum in 2014 is because the conservatives thought it would be electorally advantageous for them. If you think we had one because just out of respect for the will of the Scottish people, then not only you are deluded and incredibly naive, but also categorically proved wrong by history.
> Clearly you have a rather more dystopian vision of the UK than I do and less faith in its institutions. You are not going to convince me or I you that our views are correct. We may find out whose views were closer to reality in the next few years. For now, as I have just arrived in Portree for work as much as anything, let's give it a break.
What you call dystopian, is in fact "non-naive"
> No. Because of the Barnet formula Scotland receives more money per capita than England or Wales. So they aren't really doing well relatively speaking.
Comparing the spending per head in Scotland to the whole of England is not very useful.
But in any case, it seems completely contradictory to blame the SNP for spending too much money at the expense of the rest of the UK, when their central policy is in fact to leave the UK, which would mean rUK would not have to spend a penny.
The points were relevant in the reply to the other poster. If you want to reply to them out of context to try and prove a point that doesn't exist fill your boots.
> The points were relevant in the reply to the other poster.
It's not relevant to any reply to anybody. It's totally useless. Apples and oranges.
Dr.S at work 19:54 Mon
Scotland doesn't 'receive' most of the the money, the UK spends it 'on Scotland's behalf' much of it on sh*t we actively don't want. Like 'our share' of HS2 and Trident.
> You get the healthcare service you pay for. The UK per capita has a lower level funding than most of Europe, pay more tax, have better care.
> As an aside there is little real evidence it will ever by privatised by any party.
> Indeed. I'm sure the snp communication department suffers from selective bias too.
The SNP doesnt need the level and type of selective bias you display. The UK has a Prime Minister who couldnt visit any NHS hospital in the country without spontaneous and loud heartfelt heckling by the staff. They know how things are and they know what lies ahead. I choose to believe them before the bunch of proven liars and deceivers in government. The same will apply to any educational institution and many other publicly funded institutions, unless prearranged. The Tories have turned the UK into an isolated basket case in the world, and they are far from finished. We know this in Scotland and we know we have a choice. Westminster know that without Scotland they have very little to sell to the world and they will use every dirty trick in the book to stop it becoming independent. That is the crux of the matter, all other talk is spurious. Johnson can take his Barnet formula, his Trident, his HS2, his London Crossrail, etc etc and shove them up his backside. Scotland is realising it doesnt have to help finance them anymore.
aln 11:11 Wed
You're right enough, it's ALWAYS raining here, we're well used to it. When it rains I love nothing more than striding through the heather with my kilt swinging, munching on a haggis.
JLS 11:52 Wed
In reply to aln:
>"When it rains I love nothing more than striding through the heather with my kilt swinging, munching on a haggis."
I'm just back. Off now to polish my dirk with Brasso.
neilh 12:04 Wed
Scotland spends its money on things like free bus passes for the over 60's, I fell of my chair when I learnt this from a mate who is catching the bus from Aberdeen to Edinburgh to catch a flight. Spending it on things for people who can easily afford to pay.............
tom_in_edinburgh 12:13 Wed
In reply to neilh:
> Scotland spends its money on things like free bus passes for the over 60's, I fell of my chair when I learnt this from a mate who is catching the bus from Aberdeen to Edinburgh to catch a flight. Spending it on things for people who can easily afford to pay.............
Rich pensioners don't use free bus passes, they've got cars. So it's not as expensive as you'd think. Also the pensioners don't need to use transport at peak times, they're using seats on scheduled services which would otherwise probably be empty.
Free bus passes let old people without much money who would otherwise be housebound and lonely get out and about and do things for themselves. That keeps them healthier for longer and therefore less dependent on social care. If you look at it holistically, quite likely you save money compared with having sick, old people stuck in their houses or going into care homes earlier in their life.
summo 12:18 Wed
Personally I think pensioners should get free passes or discounts, but there have been reports that it's what kills rural transport. It's the old living rurally who might need the transport most, but if no one is paying for the service because it's only kids going to school and free pensioners, they chop that route etc.
Stuart William 12:19 Wed
> Scotland spends its money on things like free bus passes for the over 60's
As does Wales. And as does England, although you do have to wait a few extra years in England.
> Scotland doesn't 'receive' most of the the money, the UK spends it 'on Scotland's behalf'
I didn't say most, I said more per capita. That's not the same thing as you well know.
Given that Scotland has a lot more free services than England, I'm not sure what you're grumbling about!
PeterM 12:25 Wed
I was was not for independence last time, but things have changed and this time myself and a lot of people I know who voted like me last time, are not against it now. We need to leave England and the westminster shitshow.
jkarran 12:31 Wed
Presumably because those things are also of enormous value to those who can't afford to pay and means testing would either cost more than it saved, prove too blunt a tool or would jeopardise the longer term future provision of those services by stoking resentment and a backlash from the able to pay voter group.
> Given that Scotland has a lot more free services than England, I'm not sure what you're grumbling about!
I'm grumbling about the whole 'Scotland has a huge deficit and can't afford to be independent', 'England subsidises Scotland' narrative.
It is bollocks. The deficit is an artifact of the union, same as the deficits that Britain claimed the US and India were running, it is because we get billed for stuff we don't want and because of the way expensive things are centralised in London.
We can afford to have more public services than England because:
a. Scotland is wealthier than all the regions of England except London.
b. Scotland's government is more competent and efficient than England's because we don't have Tories running things. Holyrood does a better job than Westminster of forcing gradual change and consensus and that saves money.
c. We won't get involved in wars thousands of miles away, we won't run nuclear weapons and we won't build super expensive infrastructure which primarily serves London.
d. Many of these 'extra services' don't actually cost money when looked at holistically. Cheaper to give out student grants to reasonably qualified students on reasonable courses than a large number of loans many of which are never repaid. Bus passes for pensioners cost money, but maybe not as much as social care and NHS costs for housebound pensioners.
All speculation.. you don't really know what Scotland will do once they have more power.. they might be even worse (yeah I know unlikely).
Spending.. it's all relative.. you dislike cross rail spending. The pensioner in Ullapool probably thinks the Edinburgh tram is a waste of money, when she is waiting in the rain for one of her two buses a day.
Robert Durran 13:00 Wed
> Scotland is wealthier than all the regions of England except London.
London subsidises the whole of the UK.
> Spending.. it's all relative.. you dislike cross rail spending. The pensioner in Ullapool probably thinks the Edinburgh tram is a waste of money, when she is waiting in the rain for one of her two buses a day.
She probably does but they cost 1% of what HS2 will cost, Edinburgh council borrowed most of the money and they are doing well. They're way above predicted rider numbers and got profitable two years earlier than expected. They're now building out the next section of the line. I think you've got to call the tram project a successful investment even though it went through some tough times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Trams#Financial_performance
> I'm grumbling about the whole 'Scotland has a huge deficit and can't afford to be independent', 'England subsidises Scotland' narrative.
> a. Scotland is wealthier than all the regions of England except London..
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/tax-revenue-capita-england-scotland-wales-and-northern-ireland-199900-201516
A per capita average of England and Scotland puts Scotland in 2nd place. So the city of London subsidises greater London, London subsidise England, England because of the Barnet formula subsidises Scotland (and Wales and NI).
Do you support Scottish independence?
> Do you support Scottish independence?
I support freedom of choice, but there is a limit as to how often you can reasonably vote on these issues. 5 years from now, Brexit deal done, eventually, and Scotland can see what it's intentions are, based on how the deal between the UK and the eu pans out in the future.
The problem is every snp leader wants to be the one in the glory etc. So they'll continue to push for vote after vote.
alastairmac 17:24 Wed
Just for the record, I attended the march. It was wet, blowy and we all got pretty soaked, but the spirit, once again, was one of good humour, positivity and determination. The momentum behind the broad movement for independence has in my experience, never been stronger, more inclusive or more organised. I think the current government's strident and clumsy response to "the Scottish cause" betrays their lack of confidence....they know that another referendum could now very well result in a positive vote for independence.
> A per capita average of England and Scotland puts Scotland in 2nd place. So the city of London subsidises greater London, London subsidise England, England because of the Barnet formula subsidises Scotland (and Wales and NI).
No, the whole country subsidises London by locating parliament, central bank, main law courts, senior civil servants and a huge fraction of infrastructure spending there. This attracts private business to locate their headquarters and most highly paid staff in London even when their productive facilities are elsewhere in the country.
When Scotland gets independence Scotland's share of the overpriced administration which is presently in London will return to Scotland. The civil servants doing the admin for Scotland will pay taxes in Scotland, Scottish companies that want to influence government will need to have their HQ operations in Scotland. Scottish lawyers, accountants, hotels etc will get the business from these overhead operations.
We will do a lot better by having our share of the functions that make London rich in Scotland than getting a puny slice of the profits that London makes off our back as a handout.
Ftfy ...Or after independence...
> No, the whole of Scotland subsidises Edinburgh by locating parliament, central bank, main law courts, senior civil servants and a huge fraction of infrastructure spending there. This attracts private business to locate their headquarters and most highly paid staff in Scotland even when their productive facilities are elsewhere in the country.
Where do you draw the line.... beside isn't Edinburgh really part of Northumbria?
> When Aviemore gets independence Aviemore's share of the overpriced administration which is presently in Edinburgh will return to Speyside. The civil servants doing the admin for aviemore will pay taxes in speyside, aviemore companies that want to influence government will need to have their HQ operations in aviemore. Speyside lawyers, accountants, hotels etc will get the business from these overhead operations.
Where do you draw the line... at some point it's simply more efficient to centralize hqs in big cities or capital etc. Should the eu have a parliament building in every country or is more logical to have just 1 (and a quarter if you count the Strasbourg farce).
graeme jackson 22:23 Wed
> Personally I think pensioners should get free passes or discounts, but there have been reports that it's what kills rural transport. It's the old living rurally who might need the transport most, but if no one is paying for the service because it's only kids going to school and free pensioners, they chop that route etc.
This has just happened to us. Local service from Lanark to Livingston was the only way my wife could get to either town - we live in the middle of nowhere and the bus would stop if waved at. Same with a load of commuters and many other old folk. Blue bus company canned it just before Christmas along with the shotts to Livingston service. Now there's hundreds of folk who can't get around. *
*SPT have replaced the two services with a single service that goes halfway round central scotland and takes the better part of 80 minutes to get between endpoints but it doesn't come near us so 'er indoors has a 25 minute walk along a very busy road to get to the nearest bus stop.
r0x0r.wolfo 22:56 Wed
> No, the whole country subsidises London by locating parliament, central bank, main law courts, senior civil servants and a huge fraction of infrastructure spending there. This attracts private business to locate their headquarters and most highly paid staff in London even when their productive facilities are elsewhere in the country.
> When Scotland gets independence Scotland's share of the overpriced administration which is presently in London will return to Scotland. The civil servants doing the admin for Scotland will pay taxes in Scotland, Scottish companies that want to influence government will need to have their HQ operations in Scotland. Scottish lawyers, accountants, hotels etc will get the business from these overhead operations.
> We will do a lot better by having our share of the functions that make London rich in Scotland than getting a puny slice of the profits that London makes off our back as a handout.
There's plenty of Scottish civil servants and bureaucrats being paid in Edinburgh which if I'm following your logic helps Scotland compare favourably to those English regions which do not have parliaments. I'm also amazed to hear that Scotland doesn't have lawyers or accountants.
How does Scotland fare without it's capital? Or does it only make sense ignore London? You make it sound as if having a capital city is a peculiar and injust English thing. What is Edinburgh then?
tom_in_edinburgh 03:07 Thu
> Where do you draw the line... at some point it's simply more efficient to centralize hqs in big cities or capital etc. Should the eu have a parliament building in every country or is more logical to have just 1 (and a quarter if you count the Strasbourg farce).
Except your argument is totally divorced from the facts. The UK is far more centralised than either Scotland or the EU.
Glasgow is a larger city and has far more public transport infrastructure than Edinburgh. There's more media presence in Glasgow than Edinburgh. There isn't a central bank in Scotland at all at the moment. After independence I would argue against putting every major department of state previously outsourced to England in Edinburgh. For example, it would make sense to put the department in charge of Energy in Aberdeen.
The EU does not put everything in Brussels. Plenty of national capitals and some regional cities are larger than Brussels. The central bank and European court are not in Brussels. Major agencies like the EU medicines agency are distributed across member states. Brussels infrastructure is not that great compared with large cities in Germany or France.
RomTheBear 06:00 Thu
It's also more "efficient" to have one kidney instead of two. But some redundancy doesn't harm.
summo 06:44 Thu
> Glasgow is a larger city and has far more public transport infrastructure than Edinburgh.
I know I've lived in both.
> There's more media presence in Glasgow than Edinburgh.
That's because I would argue Glasgow is the real heart of Scotland, the work house, Edinburgh is just for tourists and posh jock East coasters?
> There isn't a central bank in Scotland at all at the moment.
There are 3 as far as I'm aware still issuing money?
> After independence I would argue against putting every major department of state previously outsourced to England in Edinburgh.
You'd argue, that doesn't mean it'll happen.
> For example, it would make sense to put the department in charge of Energy in Aberdeen.
Why, without carbon capture oil and gas are fuels of the past. Tech is the future, so it would seem more sensible to put it somewhere in or near Scotland's so called silicon Glen area. Perth? Good connections in all directions.
> The EU does not put everything in Brussels.
But as a rule it has one hq for each given sector for 500 billion people. Also the eu does employ a disproportionate number of people in Belgium. It's keeping their economy afloat.
kemmar 08:51 Thu
> I support freedom of choice, but there is a limit as to how often you can reasonably vote on these issues. 5 years from now, Brexit deal done, eventually, and Scotland can see what it's intentions are, based on how the deal between the UK and the eu pans out in the future.
> The problem is every snp leader wants to be the one in the glory etc. So they'll continue to push for vote after vote.
The problem is more about how much Boris Johnson and his gang can be trusted over a 5 year period, and that limit is, appropriately, a big fat zero. He can and will reduce the powers of the Scottish Parliament as quickly and as much as he can. There is a Private Members Bill waiting at the moment to go through the Lords and the Commons to change the criteria for referendum UK wide. Priti Patel who was sacked for clandestine meetings with a foreign state is now Home Secretary, Gavin Williamson is back in the Cabinet after similar. The lies and deceptions leading up to the election were brazenly, ludicrously, and repeatedly, defended on air. The Tories are not fit to govern, never mind be trusted on anything. But lets forget all that and turn the attention on glory hunting SNP leaders.
If you could link anything other than forum rumour that the Tories have plans in place to reduce the existing powers or devolution agreements the Scottish parliament has, I'll believe you.
> If you could link anything other than forum rumour that the Tories have plans in place to reduce the existing powers or devolution agreements the Scottish parliament has, I'll believe you.
It's unavoidable that the tories will seek to frustrate the functioning of devolution. They have no good reason to not do it and all the best reasons to do it.
It is also crystal clear they will never give the power to the Scottish Parliament to put the question of independence to a referendum.
> It is also crystal clear they will never give the power to the Scottish Parliament to put the question of independence to a referendum.
Ah that once a generation opportunity that the snp now want weekly until they get the result they want.
Or perhaps the snp are hoping to secure the promise of indef2 before Salmond's trial starts in march and their support takes a hit?
Amroly-Poly 10:32 Thu
me too with a Irn Bru and deep fried mars bar
L mondite 10:32 Thu
> Ah that once a generation opportunity that the snp now want weekly until they get the result they want.
Well there has been a change in circumstances. I recall that there was a big thing being made about the certainty of remaining in the EU if Scotland remained in the UK vs uncertainty about how easy it would be for Scotland to join the EU if they left.
graeme jackson 10:39 Thu
In reply to mondite:
> Well there has been a change in circumstances.
Circumstances that we were well aware might happen when we voted in 2014.
Gordon Stainforth 10:47 Thu
This is one of the great fallacies of the present time: if you keep on having referendums people will change their minds. Democracy doesn't work like that. E.g. Do you really think arch-Brexiters are suddenly going to decide to Remain if they are asked again?
And, if in a second referendum those Brexiters who did not feel so strongly about it, have changed their minds as a result of now knowing more about the risks and shortcomings, then that's democracy. It's not as if people have been manipulated by those who voted to Remain. Democracy doesn't have a 'right answer'; it simply reflects what the electorate wants at different points in time. I feel strongly that Scotland should be allowed a vote on whether to stay in the UK (but, please, a supermajority, not 52%)
Once in a generation is bullshit, there was no promise just a throwaway comment which is being wilfully misinterpreted. The agreement for indyref1 clearly states there is no constraint on Scotland leaving the UK in the future.
> Or perhaps the snp are hoping to secure the promise of indef2 before Salmond's trial starts in march and their support takes a hit?
No, the members are impatient but the leadership is pursuing the same strategy as before. They want to wait until there is serious pain from Brexit to get the extra votes they need from angry remainers and people who have lost their jobs to push indy over the line.
Sturgeon would be quite happy to make independence the issue for the Holyrood election in 2021, or possibly call a snap Holyrood election before 2021 if the opinion polls look good. If the Tories completely block indyref2 then quite likely SNP will put declaring UDI into the Holyrood 2021 election manifesto and make it a proxy independence referendum. In 2021 Salmond will either have got off or be forgotten about. The EU will be openly supportive of Scotland rejoining. There will be a new set of official statistics issued showing Scotland's predicted performance as an independent country which will kill the unionist bullsh*t of using GERS as if it was a prediction for after independence. The pound will be doing crap due to Brexit so far less resistance to changing currency.
> The EU will be openly supportive of Scotland rejoining.
They'll still have to meet the entry criteria.
> There will be a new set of official statistics issued showing Scotland's predicted performance as an independent country which will kill the unionist bullsh*t
It's no bull though.. Scotland is currently subsidised, you could of course cook the books Greece or Italy style, but look where that got them.
> The pound will be doing crap due to Brexit so far less resistance to changing currency.
At least you accept you'll have to take the euro.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> This is one of the great fallacies of the present time: if you keep on having referendums people will change their minds. Democracy doesn't work like that. E.g. Do you really think arch-Brexiters are suddenly going to decide to Remain if they are asked again?
If anything views harden if continually pushed on any subject. People get defensive over their stance, human nature I guess.
elsewhere 11:10 Thu
Once in a generation is bullshit when the electorate gives majorities to SNP and SNP/Green who campaign on basis of indyref2. The electorate is not bound to adhere to anybody's previous positions.
In reply to elsewhere:
> Once in a generation is bullshit when the electorate gives majorities to SNP and SNP/Green who campaign on basis of indyref2.
I'd imagine a large proportion of voters who switched to the SNP did so because the tactical voting websites were telling them to do so if they hated the Tories. Nothing to do with SNP policies.
> I'd imagine a large proportion of voters who switched to the SNP did so because the tactical voting websites were telling them to do so if they hated the Tories. Nothing to do with SNP policies.
Doesn't matter, it's decided by votes not unknowable motivations of millions of voters.
jimtitt 12:13 Thu
> Sturgeon would be quite happy to make independence the issue for the Holyrood election in 2021, or possibly call a snap Holyrood election before 2021 if the opinion polls look good. If the Tories completely block indyref2 then quite likely SNP will put declaring UDI into the Holyrood 2021 election manifesto and make it a proxy independence referendum. In 2021 Salmond will either have got off or be forgotten about. The EU will be openly supportive of Scotland rejoining.
Dream on, whether the EU would welcome Scotland is pure speculation and irrelevant, the decision is by a unanimous vote of the member states, not the EU.
The Spanish consul to Scotland published a letter a few weeks back saying Spain would not veto an application. He was sacked the same day. I expect you can work this out.
wercat 12:21 Thu
> Circumstances that we were well aware might happen when we voted in 2014.
that really is copper plated ...
In reply to wercat:
> that really is copper plated ...
Sorry. I really have no idea what that means. Can you please explain?
Robert Durran 12:29 Thu
> If the Tories completely block indyref2 then quite likely SNP will put declaring UDI into the Holyrood 2021 election manifesto and make it a proxy independence referendum.
I very much doubt it. As the sort of person that will need to change their vote from No to Yes (and I might, unlike the majority of No voters from 2014) I could not possibly support a UDI and all the horrific divisiveness both within the UK and Scotland that would result just from suggesting it let alone it actually happening (have we learnt nothing from Brexit?). It would be electoral suicide for Sturgeon and I'm sure she knows it. If there continues to be significant support fro a second referendum it will, in time, come. Yes, The UK government will delay for a while and Sturgeon will try to make politocal points from this, but I suspect she can do so knowing that a quick referendum is neither advisable or probably winable - it would be crazy to expect the waiverers such as myself to make an informed decision until we know what the rUK's relationship with the EU (and therefore Scotland's eventual future relationship with England) would look like.
It sometimes sems to me that the strident nationalists in their social media buibbles think that Independence will be a done deal as soon as a referendum is called. It won't be - nothing suggests it would - and Sturgeon is going to have to play her cards very cannily.
skog 13:06 Thu
> This is one of the great fallacies of the present time: if you keep on having referendums people will change their minds.
Another is that referenda keep getting rerun until the 'right' result is achieved.
What referenda have been held more than twice?
I think it's very rare indeed; those suggesting it's happening here are simply wrong, and a party that kept trying to come back with the same thing like that would be almost certain to alienate its support, then fail to get re-elected.
It was said above that "the snp now want weekly until they get the result they want" - in reality, there has been precisely one referendum on Scottish independence, ever.
Also, running a referendum a second time, under different circumstances or having revised the offer somewhat, can achieve a different result - for example Ireland, on the Treaty of Nice and on the Treaty of Lisbon. Although the Quebec independence referenda show that it can go the other way too, of course. You're right that changing the minds of those entrenched on either side is difficult and unlikely - but that's why campaigns tend to try to persuade waverers and encourage sympathetic former-non-voters to turn up and vote, instead.
All that said, I agree with everything Robert Durran just posted, and I don't think now is a great time for a second referendum on Scottish independence (although we'll pretty much have to take one when and if we can get one, as Scotland can't actually control the timing if the referendum is to be legally binding).
neilh 13:18 Thu
Out of interest, let us say there is another referendum and as indicated in all the polls the referendum says no to independence. What's the plan?
> Out of interest, let us say there is another referendum and as indicated in all the polls the referendum says no to independence. What's the plan?
All the polls don't say that. In any case it isn't about what the polls say now: that is going to change over time as Brexit chaos develops and as a result of the campaign. The unionists arguments are far weaker in 2020 than they were in 2014 and they will be even weaker in 2021.
Personally, after looking at the legal analysis Joanna Cherry is quoting on Twitter I don't think we will get an indyref while Boris is in power. There are huge problems:
a. Boris has refused the s30 in the most uncompromising terms and his lackey in Scotland is now on about 'not until after Nicola Sturgeon is dead' for another indyref.
b. The legal opinion is that it is not clear whether the Scottish Government can hold an unofficial indyref. It depends on how the courts interpret a specific phrase. However, it doesn't matter because a two paragraph bill in the commons can explicitly state that they can't and make the court proceedings moot. The other massive roadblock is that councils where the unionists are in control would refuse to organise an 'unofficial' poll.
c. The SNP couldn't get the current Holyrood parliament to pass a UDI motion at the present time even if it wanted to, and it is pretty obvious it doesn't. Some SNP+Green MSPs wouldn't go along with it.
d. All the paths through international courts will take years and years and even though SNP would likely win on the principle of self determination they may not get an enforceable judgement that makes UK agree to an indyref immediately.
The path of using a Holyrood election as a proxy for indyref looks far more achievable. I think the SNP will quite likely spin out another pro-indy party with a harder line. Like the Brexit Party worked for the Tories. In the deHon voting system used in Holyrood there is a massive advantage to having a list-only party as well as the SNP. Basically the SNP gets almost no list seats because it wins all the constituencies which means the second votes from SNP voters have no influence. A lot of the Tories in Holyrood are there on list seats, with a list-only indy party they'd be gone and the SNP + SNP2 would have a much larger majority. That could result in a parliament that would declare UDI.
> That could result in a parliament that would declare UDI.
Even if pro independence parties put a UDI in their manifestos and won the vast majority of seats at Holyrood, do you seriously think that declaring UDI would be a defensibleor indeed sane course of action without a majority of the votes cast? Or even with?
So in the event of a no vote in a referendum you are saying the SNP will declare UDI?Against the wishes of the majority who voted no?
Cannot see that happening.
> Even if pro independence parties put a UDI in their manifestos and won the vast majority of seats at Holyrood, do you seriously think that declaring UDI would be a defensibleor indeed sane course of action without a majority of the votes cast? Or even with?
It would be reasonable to specify a majority of votes cast as well as a majority in parliament as the criterion to trigger UDI. Because it is PR I don't think it is an issue, it would be difficult to get a majority at Holyrood willing to declare UDI without having a majority of votes cast for pro-Indy parties. A Holyrood election is a reasonable proxy for a referendum in circumstances where the Westminster government have made a referendum impossible to achieve.
The most likely scenario is the SNP Holyrood manifesto saying either Westminster signs off on a s30 for indyref2 within some limited time period or they declare UDI. At that point I would hope the Tories would back down and allow indyref2 (or negotiate for independence immediately if the SNP had so large a majority it was obvious which way the referendum would go) and everything would be done properly.
I think with the present set of Tories in Westminster the SNP are not going to get any progress along the 'legitimate' path to independence through a referendum without showing that they have alternatives.
> So in the event of a no vote in a referendum you are saying the SNP will declare UDI?Against the wishes of the majority who voted no?
I'm saying the Tories in Westminster are determined to prevent a referendum being held and the alternative is to use a Holyrood election as a proxy for a referendum.
Well until you have all the parties in Scotland wanting one like last time, you may have a long wait.BJ would have less reason to say no, but this is not the case at the moment.And I doubt there is enough capacity in UK govt to take on the issue until fiurther down the Brexit route.
Still not answered the question. What are you going to do if the vote is still no???
You seem to assume the answer will be yes to independence all the time.You could easily get another kick in the teeth.
> Well until you have all the parties in Scotland wanting one like last time, you may have a long wait.BJ would have less reason to say no, but this is not the case at the moment.And I doubt there is enough capacity in UK govt to take on the issue until fiurther down the Brexit route.
It isn't up to Boris any more. If the UK government are distracted by Brexit so much the better, why on earth would we wait until they can put their full attention into stopping us getting independence.
> Still not answered the question. What are you going to do if the vote is still no???
In the scenario where a Holyrood election is a proxy for indyref then obviously if the vote is No somebody else - probably the Tories - get to govern Scotland for the next Holyrood term. They'll be so unpopular and incompetent - you just need to look at them - that the SNP will be back in again after one parliamentary term and indyref will be back on the agenda.
Indy is not going away as an issue until either it is achieved or Scotland stops voting for the SNP.
> You seem to assume the answer will be yes to independence all the time.You could easily get another kick in the teeth.
Sure. Robert the Bruce lost a whole stack of battles before he won at Bannockburn. We will hang in as long as it takes.
I think you will have a long wait. Enjoy.
> Sure. Robert the Bruce lost a whole stack of battles before he won at Bannockburn. We will hang in as long as it takes.
Why stop with the 1700s or 16 or 1500s... ? Why not wind the clock back to 954? What decides the point in history you wish to return to?
> Indy is not going away as an issue until either it is achieved or Scotland stops voting for the SNP.
So we go on in perpetuity voting in SNP governments with a minority of the popular vote (cast for various reasons along with the independence one) and those governments continue forever taking this a mandate for referendum after referendum despite going on losing them?
I think you're losing the plot.
arguably 927 more significant?
HansStuttgart 16:28 Thu
In reply to jimtitt:
> Dream on, whether the EU would welcome Scotland is pure speculation and irrelevant, the decision is by a unanimous vote of the member states, not the EU.
Even when the EU member states want to welcome Scotland (and I do think this is quite likely), the problem for Scotland is the timeframe. Because before an independent Scotland can start the article 49 talks, two things need to be sorted out first: the EU/UK brexit relations and the Ind-Scot/rUK relation. The latter will take 5 years if it goes fast? Then a couple of years of accession talks, so Scotland will be out of the EU for a long time.
Whether EU wants to welcome Scotland or not, it is going to strictly follow process.
See here for an EU take on an independent Scotland:
https://wms.flexious.be/editor/plugins/imagemanager/content/2140/PDF/2019/EUScottishquestion.pdf
(but, please, a supermajority, not 52%)
Yes, this. Let's learn something from the EU referendum....
Also thinking in advance about the consequences for the communities living at the border would be smart...
Yeah but he was of French descent and his dad English. And a bit later there was Culloden.....
Joanna Cherry just published counsel's advice on whether the Scottish Government can call an indyref without an s30 order.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bkihw5dbltfwpv/Advice%20of%20Senior%20Counsel%20%28FINAL%20at%2014-01-2020%20at%201218%29.pdf
Culloden was 1746, Bannockburn 1314 not really 'a bit later'.
> arguably 927 more significant?
Yeah or 946, when it once again went to the Wessex side of the family, probably 927 was the definitive change though. Wessex, which means Edinburgh was still ruled by an English man of sorts.
But then there is pre 654, north and south of tees. You don't hear many calls about native Bernicians wanting independence!
> So we go on in perpetuity voting in SNP governments with a minority of the popular vote (cast for various reasons along with the independence one) and those governments continue forever taking this a mandate for referendum after referendum despite going on losing them?
The only way we will get a stream of referendums is if the SNP keep getting elected on a manifesto that says they will hold one. If that happens it means the issue is not resolved and support for indy is constant or rising and not far from 50%. If the unionist parties win the debate conclusively the SNP won't get elected or they'll stop putting indyref in their manifesto because it is a vote loser. That should be the limiting mechanism on the number of referendums.
Having said that I don't think the Tories are going to allow any indyrefs at all. They are far more likely to try and deconstruct the devolution settlement. I don't think it will be practical to have an indyref without consent even though it may be legally justified because the law is too easily changed by Westminster and some of the councils won't play ball. So I think the best mechanism is to use the next Holyrood election as a proxy for an indyref.
In reply to HansStuttgart:
> Even when the EU member states want to welcome Scotland (and I do think this is quite likely), the problem for Scotland is the timeframe.
I think the EU will put us in the EEA very fast which gets us back in the single market, probably we will keep using £ for a couple of years while we sort ourselves out. Nicola Sturgeon is already visiting Norway to make friends with EEA states.
> I think the EU will put us in the EEA very fast which gets us back in the single market, probably we will keep using £ for a couple of years while we sort ourselves out. Nicola Sturgeon is already visiting Norway to make friends with EEA states.
Good relations with Norway are nice. But it is the European Council that decides whether Scotland is allowed in the EEA. And they will want reassurance that Scotland can uphold its responsibilities of the EEA membership. And that requires a lot of state infrastructure. Which Scotland only has once its relationship with the rUK is clear. For example, currently EU regulations are included in UK law in Westminster. How will this happen in independent Scotland? Under what constitutional basis?
Of course, all of this is doable, but I think a decade is much more realistic than a year.
> Even when the EU member states want to welcome Scotland (and I do think this is quite likely), the problem for Scotland is the timeframe. Because before an independent Scotland can start the article 49 talks, two things need to be sorted out first: the EU/UK brexit relations and the Ind-Scot/rUK relation. The latter will take 5 years if it goes fast? Then a couple of years of accession talks, so Scotland will be out of the EU for a long time.
> Whether EU wants to welcome Scotland or not, it is going to strictly follow process.
> See here for an EU take on an independent Scotland:
> https://wms.flexious.be/editor/plugins/imagemanager/content/2140/PDF/2019/EUScottishquestion.pdf
Indeed, Tom is guessing (or dreaming) what the political landscape in Europe will look like in 10 or 15 years and how the problems of Catalonia and Kosovo will be reconciled. Then waffling on about UDI to force Westminster to do what he wants which of course would be death to any EU dreams. Then there's the Euro........
And the EU letting Scotland into the EEA?
Of course, I've been to both sites (I'm half Scots). You introduced the concept of holding out longer, clearly the English did.
Stichtplate 17:41 Thu
Very fast into the EEA and quick access to the markets that accept 18% of Scottish exports? Presumably with a hard border with the rest of the UK that takes 60% of Scotland's exports? and with the prospect of the impending chaos of a currency swap after 'a couple of years' how on Earth do you think Scotland will be able to cut it's deficit by the 70% required in order to apply for full EU membership?
> Culloden was 1746, Bannockburn 1314 not really 'a bit later'.
Does 18 years qualify as 'a bit later' ? that was the gap between Bannockburn and the start of the second war of independence and 25 years of further warfare, a cyclical pattern repeated ad nauseam until the acts of union heralded the 300 years of relative peace and prosperity that saw Britain become the world's first superpower.
If you're going to start citing history, it's worth pointing out that in the long view we really are 'better together'.
Le Sapeur 19:26 Thu
> probably we will keep using £ for a couple of years while we sort ourselves out.
Really? Sort ourselves out? That seems a bit amateurish at best. Currency is quite an important issue (does that really need to be said?). Surely that needs to be discussed, addressed and sorted out before, not bumbling about afterwards.
I suppose we could go back to the Pund Scots if the Bank of England say no to us using Sterling.
Talking of money, how much will this all cost and who will pay for it?
Do you realise just how long ago that was? And you are still holding a grudge? We have fought world wars with the rest of the UK since then.
> I think the EU will put us in the EEA very fast which gets us back in the single market, probably we will keep using £ for a couple of years while we sort ourselves out.
If the UK treasury allows you too, even then you'll have to set interest rates according to the bank of England and won't be able to borrow. Independent.. then onto the euro where you'll be devalued to help keep northern Europe afloat.
> Really? Sort ourselves out? That seems a bit amateurish at best. Currency is quite an important issue (does that really need to be said?). Surely that needs to be discussed, addressed and sorted out before, not bumbling about afterwards.
> I suppose we could go back to the Pund Scots if the Bank of England say no to us using Sterling.
> Talking of money, how much will this all cost and who will pay for it?
Talking of money, how much has Brexit cost already and who is paying for it? How much will it cost in the future and who will be paying for it?
Keep in mind the current and now long term dirt value of the pound. Whatever level its at when a referendum is even announced it will drop in keeping with Scotlands value to the UK, which means a considerable drop. It wont be about BOE saying no to the Pound, Scotland can use virtually any currency it wants, it will be about BOE requesting Scotland to keep using the Pound.
> Keep in mind the current and now long term dirt value of the pound. Whatever level its at when a referendum is even announced it will drop in keeping with Scotlands value to the UK, which means a considerable drop.
How, per capita Scotland contributes less than England to the treasury, but receives more back. Pounds gain if you leave.
> It wont be about BOE saying no to the Pound, Scotland can use virtually any currency it wants, it will be about BOE requesting Scotland to keep using the Pound.
Nope. I think you might be in for a shock. If a country uses anothers currency they don't have control over interest rates or borrowing. You'll be at the mercy of the BOE but without representation in London. Just like the countries which use the US dollar, they have no control over their own currency.
> Nope. I think you might be in for a shock. If a country uses anothers currency they don't have control over interest rates or borrowing. You'll be at the mercy of the BOE but without representation in London. Just like the countries which use the US dollar, they have no control over their own currency.
So, exactly as it is now then.
You're still completely deluded with your UDI. This is totally pointless. The problem is that you still haven't realised :
- the U.K. is not a democracy, it's an electoral dictatorship
- The English electorate does not give a flying f*ck about what the Scots think.
If you want independence the ONLY thing that matter is that the English electorate wants to get rid of Scotland. Independence is achievable only by pissing off the English electorate not by convincing the Scottish electorate.
> Of course, all of this is doable, but I think a decade is much more realistic than a year.
These things happen fast when there is political will. Look how quickly Germany re-unified. The EU made absolutely no delay to that process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom
UDI is clearly not pointless.
> How, per capita Scotland contributes less than England to the treasury, but receives more back.
Still bollocks.
Scotland hasn't had any noticeable control of interest rates or borrowing since the Treaty of Union.
It can't say no, just like the US government can't stop my company trading in US dollars. The pound is an internationally traded currency, anyone can use it. The question is why would we want to use the pound rather than the Euro our or own currency. My guess is that after we get ourselves sorted out we wouldn't.
> These things happen fast when there is political will. Look how quickly Germany re-unified. The EU made absolutely no delay to that process.
a) that was a pretty special historic event. Not comparable to Scotland trying to go on its own.
b) EU was much looser those days, way less formal procedures. (developed with the Lisbon treaty, because with lots of new members the structure was becoming ungovernable).
c) Germany was and is at the center of power in the EU. Scotland is not. A better comparison would be Estonia between its independence and joining the EU. (1991 and 2004)
d) See also the perfectly reasonable claims to start accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania. Which were blocked.
Of course everything can work out faster, but I wouldn't plan my future on it.
> So, exactly as it is now then.
I voted for a representative in London only last month.
> Independence is achievable only by pissing off the English electorate not by convincing the Scottish electorate.
So the last referendum went the way it did simply because the English weren't pissed off enough with us?
> Scotland hasn't had any noticeable control of interest rates or borrowing since the Treaty of Union.
Despite Prime Ministers and chancellors elected as MP's in Scottish constituencies?
> Despite Prime Ministers and chancellors elected as MP's in Scottish constituencies?
> > Independence is achievable only by pissing off the English electorate not by convincing the Scottish electorate.
> So the last referendum went the way it did simply because the English weren't pissed off enough with us?
This is quite irrelevant, as I have explained. It doesn't matter that much whether there is a majority or a minority in Scotland for leaving the UK, this isn't what's going to decide whether it does leave it or not.
None of them got to be chancellor or prime minister without completely selling out to unionism and building their career in London. They acted exactly the same way as English ministers would with regard to interest rates and borrowing - which, to be fair, is the logical approach if you are a unionist because England is 10x the population of Scotland and economic power is centralised in London.
UK interest rates are set to manage the London housing market, UK central bank interventions are to look out for London's financial institutions. That's where the people who make the decisions have their personal wealth concentrated. The UK interest rate policy is not a suitable one for Scotland - as was pointed out in the McCrone report, which they classified.
> None of them got to be chancellor or prime minister without completely selling out to unionism and building their career in London.
Or, to put it another way, they just acted as British members of a British government while happening to be Scottish.
Every few days I think "Yeah, Scottish independence could work - I could vote for that". Then I come on UKC and read tom-in Edinburgh's deluded ravings and I think "nah, we're better together".
Less than allowing the Tories to run the show and orders of magnitude less than the oil money that was stolen from Scotland as a result of being in the UK.
The Tories have already lost the UK economy more money with their Brexit bullsh*t than the entire UK contributions to the EU over its membership. That is how crazy they are.
> I voted for a representative in London only last month.
You wasted your time.
> You wasted your time.
Well I voted SNP in order to get rid of my tory MP. I was successful in this.
> Or, to put it another way, they just acted as British members of a British government
That is your problem.
> That is your problem.
> Well I voted SNP in order to get rid of my tory MP. I was successful in this.
If you care about who is MP and not about policy, then, OK. The reality is that you could cite any way you want, won't make a difference to how the show is run.
The fundamental problem is that democracy doesn't scale up for a country the size of the U.K, certainly not with such an ill-suited system.
> If you care about who is MP and not about policy, then, OK.
I did it precisely because I did care about policy; I wanted a pro-remain parliament.
> I did it precisely because I did care about policy; I wanted a pro-remain parliament.
Was never going to happen though.
tom_in_edinburgh 00:00 Fri
> Or, to put it another way, they just acted as British members of a British government while happening to be Scottish.
Well yes - but we were talking about interest rate policy and whether the fact that the chancellor/PM have occasionally been Scottish meant it was being set according to Scotland's needs.
If they act as British members of a British government and England is 10x the population of Scotland with its economy concentrated in London and balanced differently from Scotland then Scotland gets an inappropriate interest rate policy imposed on it.
Robert Durran 00:05 Fri
> Well yes - but we were talking about interest rate policy and whether the fact that the chancellor/PM have occasionally been Scottish meant it was being set according to Scotland's needs.
> If they act as British members of a British government and England is 10x the population of Scotland with its economy concentrated in London and balanced differently from Scotland then Scotland gets an inappropriate interest rate policy imposed on it.
But how far should things be fragmented? Won't Orkney or wherever be saying the same thing about Holyrood and Edinburgh in an independent Scotland? In principle there is no reason why a British government shouldn't act in the interest of Britain as a whole. I would be in favour of a truly federal UK, but, sadly, that doesn't seem to be on the table.
> For example, currently EU regulations are included in UK law in Westminster. How will this happen in independent Scotland? Under what constitutional basis?
Many EU regulations relate to devolved matters it is often Holyrood which has delegated some of its powers to the EU and which currently puts EU law into Scots law. So it will happen the same way as now, except in a few more areas.
kemmar 01:54 Fri
> You're still completely deluded with your UDI. This is totally pointless. The problem is that you still haven't realised :
> - the U.K. is not a democracy, it's an electoral dictatorship
> - The English electorate does not give a flying f*ck about what the Scots think.
> If you want independence the ONLY thing that matter is that the English electorate wants to get rid of Scotland. Independence is achievable only by pissing off the English electorate not by convincing the Scottish electorate.
We do not need to piss off the English electorate, there is Boris Johnson there ready to piss them off for us. The English electorate have expressed by a wide margin that leaving the EU is more important than keeping Scotland in the Union. They have high expectations about getting Brexit done, but its impossible for Johnson, or any PM, to achieve whats needed over the next year. Scotland now has plenty MPs in the Commons to keep reminding that electorate, who dont give a flyinf f*ck what Scots think, just how poorly Johnsons negotiations are going. The brexiteers wont be long in telling Boris to forget about the bloody Scots and just 'get on with the day job'. This will of course be on top the domestic spending promises which he already knows he cant keep.
Stichtplate 03:03 Fri
> The English electorate have expressed by a wide margin that leaving the EU is more important than keeping Scotland in the Union. They have high expectations about getting Brexit done, but its impossible for Johnson, or any PM, to achieve whats needed over the next year. Scotland now has plenty MPs in the Commons to keep reminding that electorate, who dont give a flyinf f*ck what Scots think, just how poorly Johnsons negotiations are going. The brexiteers wont be long in telling Boris to forget about the bloody Scots and just 'get on with the day job'. This will of course be on top the domestic spending promises which he already knows he cant keep.
I've noticed Scottish Nationalists on here continually make claims for speaking for the whole of Scotland, continually speak of English voters as though they're one monolithic block, all in the service of continually framing their argument as one of "Us v's Them". This is pure divisive bollocks. I've yet to see an advocate of any other party claim their political majority in parliament gave them the right to speak for the entire country. Can you imagine a Tory supporter coming on here and claiming to speak for the whole of England? Scots Nats supporters do this all the time.
Next time you start spouting about what the English want v's what Scots want, please bear a few facts in mind:
-The SNP achieved 45% of Scotland's votes in 2019
-The Conservatives achieved 47% in England in 2019
(so both parties represent a minority)
-At the last indie referendum (recent enough that stuff at the back of my fridge remembers it), 55% of the Scottish electorate rejected independence.
-Nationalism doesn't magically become less toxic and divisive simply because it's happening North of an imaginary line, that itself was formed through political expediency, not cultural reality.
RomTheBear 06:14 Fri
> -The Conservatives achieved 47% in England in 2019
It does not matter under FPTP. This minority will rule.
> -At the last indie referendum (recent enough that stuff at the back of my fridge remembers it), 55% of the Scottish electorate rejected independence.
> -Nationalism doesn't magically become less toxic and divisive
It is evidently less so, though. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody in Scotland who wants to stop the English from coming to Scotland.
> But how far should things be fragmented? Won't Orkney or wherever be saying the same thing about Holyrood and Edinburgh in an independent Scotland? In principle there is no reason why a British government shouldn't act in the interest of Britain as a whole.
There is a very big obvious reason, England is the country with overwhelmingly the most constituencies, so it is in the best interest of any British party to please the English electorate first and foremost.
> I would be in favour of a truly federal UK, but, sadly, that doesn't seem to be on the table.
That was one of the two fundamental basis of the better together campaign : 1) Staying in the U.K. would mean that Scotland would stay in the EU 2) Devolution would be accelerated with a move towards a federal system.
Both have been totally ignored and are now completely off the table. Which didn't surprise me and is perfectly logical.
> But how far should things be fragmented? Won't Orkney or wherever be saying the same thing about Holyrood and Edinburgh in an independent Scotland?
Possibly. They should do what they want in any case.
Bjartur i Sumarhus 07:21 Fri
"Less than allowing the Tories to run the show and orders of magnitude less than the oil money that was stolen from Scotland as a result of being in the UK. "
Scottish oil? You need to look at a map, it was Shetland and Orkney oil.
L mondite 07:33 Fri
> There is a very big obvious reason, England is the country with overwhelmingly the most constituencies, so it is in the best interest of any British party to please the English electorate first and foremost.
What is the "English electorate".
Does someone in Carlisle have exactly the same dreams as someone in London or is there a possibility there may be some variation?
Looking at the more fanatical Scottish nationalists does remind me a lot of the brexiteers. Set up the boogyman in Westminster or Brussels and declaring how they speak for all even when it is obvious they dont.
> What is the "English electorate".
> Does someone in Carlisle have exactly the same dreams as someone in London or is there a possibility there may be some variation?
A yuuuuge variation.
> Looking at the more fanatical Scottish nationalists does remind me a lot of the brexiteers. Set up the boogyman in Westminster or Brussels and declaring how they speak for all even when it is obvious they dont.
All the more reason to give the power to organise indyref to the Scottish Parliament.
summo 07:58 Fri
> Less than allowing the Tories to run the show and orders of magnitude less than the oil money that was stolen from Scotland as a result of being in the UK.
The city of London(1sq mile) generates twice the tax revenue as the entire UK oil and gas industry. Who is supporting who? And in 20 years time what will any oil and gas reserves be worth?
> The city of London(1sq mile) generates twice the tax revenue as the entire UK oil and gas industry. Who is supporting who ?
If you are so convinced the Scots are freeloading, the solution is very simple, let them go and take responsibility for their own finances.
HansStuttgart 09:00 Fri
Do you think London should also get the power to organize an independence referendum if the people want it? (For example by voting in a pro-independence mayor)
graeme jackson 09:11 Fri
> You'd be hard pressed to find anybody in Scotland who wants to stop the English from coming to Scotland.
I moved out of west Lothian 4 years ago because it was depressingly easy to find scots who didn't want an Englishman anywhere near their country.
> Do you think London should also get the power to organize an independence referendum if the people want it? (For example by voting in a pro-independence mayor)
> The city of London(1sq mile) generates twice the tax revenue as the entire UK oil and gas industry. Who is supporting who? And in 20 years time what will any oil and gas reserves be worth?
The City isn't subsidising anything, the rest of the country is subsidising London by permitting this degree of centralisation. Many of the services provided by the city are about protecting the wealth of the rich from taxation and are actively against the interests of the country. It's like considering tobacco as a productive industry because you get tax from cigarettes and ignoring the cost to the health service and loss of productivity through illness.
But independent of that your argument is still bollocks. Scotland's population is 10x smaller than England's. We achieve the same level of tax revenue per head of population with an overall tax revenue 1/10 of that of England. If our industries are generating more than 1/10 of the tax from England's industries and the tax is all going into a central UK pool and being distributed evenly then Scotland would be subsidising England.
> how on Earth do you think Scotland will be able to cut it's deficit by the 70% required in order to apply for full EU membership?
This is total bollocks. First the deficit number they are based on. There's a reason those figures are called GERS - it tells you something about the people who designed them that they wanted to name their project after that particular team. Sad but true. GERS is designed to make a unionist argument and reflects the situation within the UK not the situation after independence. The Scottish Government are going to produce a separate set of statistics based on the premise that Scotland is an independent state.
Second the deficit criterion is not one for EU membership it is a criterion for joining the Euro. Personally I think Scotland should join the Euro but if it takes a few years then I'm not that worried. Also, we have the option to join the EEA to get back into the single market if there's a delay involved in full EU membership.
alastairmac 10:28 Fri
Back to basics: It's not "separatism" or "nationalism" to want to govern your own country. It's normal. It is abnormal to be governed by another country, just because that larger neighbour has had the capacity, scale and the economic influence to enforce that relationship of exploitation for 300 years. Just ask any of the countries that threw off colonial rule from Westminster over the last 100 years or so if they'd like to hand back their independence.
We now have a position where it's politically , acceptable to say that regardless of the choices made by Scottish voters, their choices with reference to how they are governed will be disregarded. And for politicians like Lisa Nandy to talk about adopting a "Catalonian" model to subdue independence movements. The issue in Scotland today isn't just about independence, it's about civil rights and democracy. It's about freedom of choice.
Like many others in Scotland, the only nationalism that worries me presently, is British Nationalism, which still fetishises the British Empire and is based upon xenophobia and exceptionalism. With no small degree of racism thrown in for good measure.
In the run up to this most recent election I haven't heard one positive argument or rest for Scottish voters to support the union. The only words I hear as a Scottish voter are "can't", "won't" to "not allowed". Coercion, misinformation and threats might hold together the union for another year or maybe even for another ten years, but the divorce papers are in the post.
In reply to alastairmac:
> Back to basics: It's not "separatism" or "nationalism" to want to govern your own country. It's normal. It is abnormal to be governed by another country, just because that larger neighbour has had the capacity, scale and the economic influence to enforce that relationship of exploitation for 300 years. Just ask any of the countries that threw off colonial rule from Westminster over the last 100 years or so if they'd like to hand back their independence.
Wed are not governed by another country. We are part of a single copuntry called the UK. I agree that there are perfectly good arguments for breaking up the UK into more than one country and I might end up voting for it, but I get really fed up with this sort of distortion of the present situation.
To compare Scotland's situation to that of colonies under direct British rule is absurd.
> Like many others in Scotland, the only nationalism that worries me presently, is British Nationalism, which still fetishises the British Empire and is based upon xenophobia and exceptionalism. With no small degree of racism thrown in for good measure.
But there is undoubtedly an undercurrent of nasty Scottish anti-English nationalism as well. It is certainly not mainstream in the SNP, but I'm not convionced the main stream nationalist movement is doing enough to squash it and one of my fears about independence is that it will take it as a license to rear its ugly head further as has happened with Brexit. Just as some Brexiteers courted the xenophobic vote, I fear that the SNP will not go far enough to condemn it when they are going to need every vote they can get.
> Wed are not governed by another country. We are part of a single copuntry called the UK. I agree that there are perfectly good arguments for breaking up the UK into more than one country and I might end up voting for it, but I get really fed up with this sort of distortion of the present situation
What you consider your country is a matter of personal preference.
> To compare Scotland's situation to that of colonies under direct British rule is absurd.
You could easily compare it to that of Ireland.
Andy Hardy 10:48 Fri
> Talking of money,[...], Scotland can use virtually any currency it wants, it will be about BOE requesting Scotland to keep using the Pound.
However, to join the EU, an independent Scotland will require it's own currency and central bank. It will not be admitted if it is using sterling, even in a currency union (which is not going to happen)
> But there is undoubtedly an undercurrent of nasty Scottish anti-English nationalism as well. It is certainly not mainstream in the SNP, but I'm not convionced the main stream nationalist movement is doing enough to squash it and one of my fears about independence is that it will take it as a license to rear its ugly head further as has happened with Brexit. Just as some Brexiteers courted the xenophobic vote
The comparison with brexit isn't helpful because the xenophobic vote revealed by Brexit was mainstream and still is.
The simple fact is pretty much everybody I know who voted brexit is very comfortable preventing Europeans from moving to Britain. For most it was the principal motivation. Nobody I know in favour of Scottish independence would favour or even contemplate doing the same to the English.
> What you consider your country is a matter of personal preference.
No, Scotland and England are legally part of the same country. I've noticed this creep among nationalists recently to say that Scotland is a separate country, when before they were usually referred to as different nations (within the country called the UK) in order to make the distinction.
> You could easily compare it to that of Ireland.
That would certainly be a better comparison.
In reply to Andy Hardy:
> However, to join the EU, an independent Scotland will require it's own currency and central bank. It will not be admitted if it is using sterling, even in a currency union (which is not going to happen)
This is completely speculative. Moreover, nobody said rejoining the EU would be an imperative.
Personally I'd be quite happy if it was out of the EU but with FoM between people.
> But independent of that your argument is still bollocks. Scotland's population is 10x smaller than England's. We achieve the same level of tax revenue per head of population with an overall tax revenue 1/10 of that of England.
Provide some credible evidence that per capita Scotland generates more tax and than England, plus that England is receiving more money per capita from the UK treasury than Scotland.
> The comparison with brexit isn't helpful because the xenophobic vote revealed by Brexit was mainstream and still is.
I agree the situation is nopt nearly as bad as with Brexit, but I still worry about nasty anti-English nationalism gaining traction. I'm half english and have lived in Scvotland long enough to feel Scottish and completely at home here, but I have English friends living in Scotland who regularly experience xenophobia and are seriously worried about independence as a a result.
> If you are so convinced the Scots are freeloading, the solution is very simple, let them go and take responsibility for their own finances.
They can. But they should at least be honest about their financial position, what currency they will have to use, national debt, UK assets that could leave and how hard it will be to join the eu afterwards.
Rigid Raider 11:01 Fri
A solicitor we know in Stirling told us recently that it's a mistake to assume the Scots hate the English - according to him the majority are very happy with the English; the hatred is confined to a few xenophobes in Glasgow who would hate anybody on principle.
He also dropped an interesting snippet about wee Nickie, with whom he trained as a solicitor. Early in her career she worked for a bucket-shop conveyancing firm but she suddenly and mysteriously left the law profession and got into politics. He and his colleagues sometimes speculate that something went badly wrong at that time but that she's now got a super-injunction on her former colleagues to prevent them talking about it.
> No, Scotland and England are legally part of the same country. I've noticed this creep among nationalists recently to say that Scotland is a separate country, when before they were usually referred to as different nations (within the country called the UK) in order to make the distinction.
This is a pointless (And probably arguable) legal point. The U.K. is a country of countries.
It doesn't matter one bit what you call it or what the legal status is. At the end of the day it's a matter of preferences what country you recognise as your own.
> They can. But they should at least be honest about their financial position, what currency they will have to use, national debt, UK assets that could leave and how hard it will be to join the eu afterwards.
Of course, but the point is that it should be up to them to decide when they have enough clarity around what the options are and up to them to decide when they want to have a referendum.
The whole issue is that the UK government will not let them decide.
neilh 11:09 Fri
Class. That is hilarious. None of those countries were part of the United Kingdom in the first place.About the weakest point I have ever seen.
> This is total bollocks. First the deficit number they are based on. There's a reason those figures are called GERS - it tells you something about the people who designed them that they wanted to name their project after that particular team. Sad but true. GERS is designed to make a unionist argument
I've provided you links evidencing these figures before. Links from sources most would consider entirely credible. If you want to keep insisting it ain't so, then perhaps you could provide some links to the sources you're getting your information from.
I'm entirely open to being convinced that you're right on this one, but given the number of outlandish positions you've taken in the past, forgive me if I find "cos I say so" a little less than fully persuasive.
> This is a pointless (And probably arguable) legal point. The U.K. is a country of countries.
> It doesn't matter one bit what you call it or what the legal status is. At the end of the day it's a matter of preferences what country you recognise as your own.
But whatever termoinology you use, Scotland is part of a larger entity called the UK and is not "ruled" by another part of it like a colony.
I don't want to start a long dialogue based on the history of Scotland.....but we are and always have been a self defining country. And one generally recognised internationally, if not formally , then in general terms. Accepting that we entered a political and economic union, which we should also now have the right to exit. If we are not prevented from doing so, and even prevented from making that democratic choice, then it's hard to avoid comparisons with colonialism. And for a very long time Westminster has exercised a political, economic and cultural influence over Scotland that's designed to absorb, divide and control. If not through explicit design, then through a broad understanding that Scotland should be treated as a "possession" rather than a "partner". It's what happens when decisions for a country are made by political leaders with no vested interest in the people, culture, language or well being of that country....only how useful it is to them in political,strategic or economic terms.
Tom in Edinburgh wants an independent Scotland to join the euro. https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/low_turnout_on_indie2refwhatsit_march-714603?v=1#x9116328 which I assumed would have joining the EU as a pre-requisite (but then again, maybe not!)
Can I consider my nationality Scottish then and get a vote in indy ref 2? How about if I just consider myself Australian and bugger off entirely?
You could if you can bring yourself to completely ignore history, language, culture, religion, geography and legal status.
Both your statements are perfectly reasonable. If you're happy to ignore actual reality.
> The whole issue is that the UK government will not let them decide.
Only they did vote not long ago.
I'd say give it 3 years from when ever Brexit happens and the trade deal starts. Then those in Scotland will know what they are voting to be part of, or to leave. There is still too much uncertainty to vote at present.
>It's what happens when decisions for a country are made by political leaders with no vested interest in the people, culture, language or well being of that country...
Hard to square that statement with the fact that two of the last four prime ministers were born and educated in Scotland and a third had deep Scottish roots including a Scottish father.
> And for a very long time Westminster has exercised a political, economic and cultural influence over Scotland that's designed to absorb, divide and control. If not through explicit design, then through a broad understanding that Scotland should be treated as a "possession" rather than a "partner".
Sorry, but I think this is utter bollocks - just wishful thinking on your part to justify your strong desire for independence. One of the great things about the UK is the way its constituent nations have retained their cultural identity and their individuality in many areas. Scotland simply isn't an English possession - it is a partner (albeit a smaller one and with therefore proportionally less representation at Westminster).
But I do agree that the situation will become untenable if Westminster denies a second referendum indefinitely.
> I'd say give it 3 years from when ever Brexit happens and the trade deal starts. Then those in Scotland will know what they are voting to be part of, or to leave. There is still too much uncertainty to vote at present.
"I can see there is a huge f*cking hole in the side of this ship but I'm going to stay on board and see if it actually sinks before I make my mind up."
Absolutely. I want to know what I'm voting for.
The already committed nationalists don't seem to realise that to get independence they need to win over waiverers such as myself who will need to weigh up the strengths of the union against the possible benefits of independence, and to do that we need to know what we're getting with regard to relationships with England and the EU. While that is still in flux, we cannot possibly make an informed choice and I, for one, am unlikely to gamble.
> "I can see there is a huge f*cking hole in the side of this ship but I'm going to stay on board and see if it actually sinks before I make my mind up."
But I want to choose a lifeboat that hasn't also got a huge f*cking hole in it.
> Hard to square that statement with the fact that two of the last four prime ministers were born and educated in Scotland and a third had deep Scottish roots including a Scottish father.
How do you work that out?
Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson.
Brown was Scottish.
> How do you work that out?
> Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson.
> Brown was Scottish.
I said last four prime ministers. If I was asked to compile a list of my last four girlfriends it'd seem a little odd if I included my wife.
Edit: I see you've taken time out of your day to quibble over my inclusion of Blair, but still no reply to my earlier request for a link to prove, as you put it, that I was "talking bollocks"
> Edit: I see you've taken time out of your day to quibble over my inclusion of Blair
But you've forgotten that tom doesn't count Blair anyway because he considers Fettes College to be an insidious colonial outpost of the English public school system!
> But you've forgotten that tom doesn't count Blair anyway because he considers Fettes College to be an insidious colonial outpost of the English public school system!
Oh I've not forgotten. We had an exchange on that very matter where he went as far to say Fettes even looked English... despite having been designed by a Scottish architect blending a Loire château with elements of the 19th century Scottish Baronial; how very English! One of Tom's many endearing qualities is that he never lets facts get in the way of whatever tale he happens to be spinning.
Come to think of it, I don't count Brown either because he said he'd support the England football team.
DH3631 12:49 Fri
In reply to Rigid Raider:
> He also dropped an interesting snippet about wee Nickie, with whom he trained as a solicitor. Early in her career she worked for a bucket-shop conveyancing firm but she suddenly and mysteriously left the law profession and got into politics. He and his colleagues sometimes speculate that something went badly wrong at that time but that she's now got a super-injunction on her former colleagues to prevent them talking about it.
I'm not Nicola Sturgeon's biggest fan, and I suspect her fairly brief legal career was for gnever destined for greatness, but I'm sorry, this is bollocks. NS was an SNP activist from teenage years onwards, and had been an unsuccessful candidate in various elections, starting before she even qualified as a solicitor, before she was eventually elected as a list MSP in 1999. So not sure what's mysterious about someone who always wanted to be a politician becoming one at the first opportunity, and leaving a job which she probably wasn't particularly keen on.
Anyway, whatever the truth in this kind of story, ultimately it's not that important in relation to the independence question. As a No in 2014, I used to think that the rise of support for independence over the last 20 years was basically a bubble that would burst at some point, after which things would return to the pre-devolution norm of the SNP/independence being a fairly harmless fringe interest. Whilst I suspect that many of the smarter Scottish Tories have realised the game has changed, unfortunately so many UK politicians, left and right, are still labouring under this 'silver bullet' thinking, that at some point something will happen to make it all go away, therefore, in the interim they don't need to consider any fundamental changes to the status quo eg federalism.
The reality is that whilst things like the Salmond trial, conduct/financial issues with other nats, or performance issues with devolved services like health/education, may cause short term political turbulence for the SNP, and may even end the careers of some currently prominent SNP politicians, none of it is going to change what is now the settled view of, on any view, a very significant percentage of the Scottish electorate.
> But whatever termoinology you use, Scotland is part of a larger entity called the UK and is not "ruled" by another part of it like a colony.
So how come we haven't voted for the Tories since World War II and we still get Tory governments more than half the time.
How come some Tory in London elected by English votes can say to Scotland 'you aren't having an independence referendum' despite the SNP winning five or six elections on the trot and the Scottish Parliament voting through the bill to hold one.
It's a colony. And it is only going to get worse, you can see it from the Scottish Tory statements, the plan is to cover Scotland in union jacks and remove powers from the Scottish Parliament to give them to the Secretary of State in his huge new office block. Scottish Tories are even starting to use Loyalist words like 'staunch' so people understand that it's football politics now. Same playbook as was used in Ireland.
Now we even have one of the candidates for the Labour leadership saying they should look to Catalonia as the way to deal with 'divisive separatists'. UK politics is having a competition to pander to Brexiteers in Leave voting English constituencies.
> But I want to choose a lifeboat that hasn't also got a huge f*cking hole in it.
When the ship is sinking you don't get to walk around inspecting the lifeboats - unless you want to be left without one.
> When the ship is sinking you don't get to walk around inspecting the lifeboats - unless you want to be left without one.
I think the main point would be to confirm the ship is indeed sinking and then ascertain what assistance you can lend your fellow passengers prior to randomly leaping into the lifeboat with a cheery "screw you, suckers", while your former vessel continues to steam on over the horizon unhindered.
> So how come we haven't voted for the Tories since World War II and we still get Tory governments more than half the time.
The UK gets Tory governments whenever a majority of UK parliamentary constiutuencies elect a Tory MP. If we're talking about the UK only "we" whch makes sense is "we the UK electorate". You seem to be in denial of the Uk's existence (whether you like it or not).
> How come some Tory in London elected by English votes can say to Scotland 'you aren't having an independence referendum' despite the SNP winning five or six elections on the trot and the Scottish Parliament voting through the bill to hold one.
They can't in the longer term.
> It's a colony.
That is quite simply factually incorrect.
> Come to think of it, I don't count Brown either because he said he'd support the England football team.
If he'd support them against Scotland, you have a point. Otherwise not.
> Only they did vote not long ago.
So what ? It should be up to the Scottish people to decide when it has been long enough. Besides, more has changed in the last half decade then had changed in the past three.
Should be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide that.
> Absolutely. I want to know what I'm voting for.
> The already committed nationalists don't seem to realise that to get independence they need to win over waiverers such as myself.
They don't really need to convince you. They need to convince the English electorate that Scotland is a pain in the arse that needs to go.
> > And for a very long time Westminster has exercised a political, economic and cultural influence over Scotland that's designed to absorb, divide and control. If not through explicit design, then through a broad understanding that Scotland should be treated as a "possession" rather than a "partner".
> Sorry, but I think this is utter bollocks - just wishful thinking on your part to justify your strong desire for independence. One of the great things about the UK is the way its constituent nations have retained their cultural identity and their individuality in many areas. Scotland simply isn't an English possession - it is a partner (albeit a smaller one and with therefore proportionally less representation at Westminster).
What kind of a « partner » denies the other part the right to choose whether the partnership should continue ? What kind of a partner forces you to put more distance between you and your friends ?
The only kind that does that is an abusive partner.
> They don't really need to convince you. They need to convince the English electorate that Scotland is a pain in the arse that needs to go.
So it's going to be decided by a referendum in England over whether to kick Scotland out of the Union?
> What kind of a « partner » denies the other part the right to choose whether the partnership should continue ? What kind of a partner forces you to put more distance between you and your friends ?
> The only kind that does that is an abusive partner.
If Scotland decides that it is a sufficiently abusive partnership, then yes, we shall vote to leave. I've no argument with that.
> Can I consider my nationality Scottish then and get a vote in indy ref 2? How about if I just consider myself Australian and bugger off entirely?
What should count for a vote is residence. Nothing else. But that's my preference.
> You could if you can bring yourself to completely ignore history, language, culture, religion, geography and legal status.
> Both your statements are perfectly reasonable. If you're happy to ignore actual reality
Again you show your complete ignorance of Scotland and Scottish people. I've lived in 5 different countries, including England and Scotland. Each were as unique and distinct in their history and culture IMO.
This is actually not what I expected, when I first came to Scotland I was expecting that I was just going to a different part of the U.K. I quickly realised that I was wrong. It very much feels like it's own country.
But it's perfectly OK for others to experience things differently, what's unacceptable is to force only one way on others like you do. You have to realise that forcing down people's throat the identity, government, culture you want them to have isn't going to work, unless you are prepared to wipe them out one way or another.
In any case, I don't think it really matters, what counts is how people want to be governed. If they prefer the Scottish Parliament to Westminster that is their choice and should be up to the to decide.
A union of nations where one nation has 10x the votes and therefore the power to dictate to the other and prevent it from leaving is colonial. The EU is an example of how it should work - a nation can choose to leave if it wants.
> If Scotland decides that it is a sufficiently abusive partnership, then yes, we shall vote to leave. I've no argument with that.
So we agree then, the power to decide on whether to hold a vote should lie with the Scottish Parliament, not with Westminster.
> A union of nations where one nation has 10x the votes and therefore the power to dictate to the other and prevent it from leaving is colonial.
It is unbalanced and not ideal, but not colonial. How about stick to facts without continually resorting to inappropriate terminology?
So was Ireland. It Completely depends on your preference. If you don't recognise the legitimacy of Westminster your view will be different.
That isn't what colonial means though is it.
There was a vote 6 years ago and the no vote won. Seeking a re-run so soon afterwards, during a period of intense political turmoil, at a point when the UK has the most despised government in a generation with the weakest opposition in 80 years, seems at best petulant and at the very least, cynically opportunist.
>The EU is an example of how it should work - a nation can choose to leave if it wants.
That is yet to be proved isn't it?
> There was a vote 6 years ago and the no vote won. Seeking a re-run so soon afterwards, during a period of intense political turmoil, at a point when the UK has the most despised government in a generation with the weakest opposition in 80 years, seems at best petulant and at the very least, cynically opportunist.
You may be right, but that's up to the Scottish people to decide that for themselves. Or maybe you think they are too stupid to decide for themselves when a referendum would be best organised if at all ?
> That is yet to be proved isn't it?
Hum, just to let you know, that is the case....
> There was a vote 6 years ago and the no vote won.
Based on a set of promises they did not keep. In particular that voting NO was the way to stay in the EU.
> Seeking a re-run so soon afterwards, during a period of intense political turmoil, at a point when the UK has the most despised government in a generation with the weakest opposition in 80 years, seems at best petulant and at the very least, cynically opportunist.
Seems far more sensible than waiting until Brexit becomes very hard to reverse and the Tories have had 5 years to run riot.
No, it has happened. Letting the UK leave is not the same as giving the Tories a 'cake and eat it' trade deal.
> What should count for a vote is residence. Nothing else. But that's my preference.
Hmm... so you can rock up from Ulan Bator, speak not a word of English (or Gaelic), know nothing of Scotland, the UK or the union and have no cultural, personal or business ties to your new country but you should get the vote cos you've just acquired the keys to a one bedroom flat in Pollack?
Meanwhile, a lifelong resident of aulde reekie, with Scots roots going back decades and an intense bond with his country, is disbarred from voting because his company posted him to Berwick and the house he's renting is a mile South of the border. How very fair!
> Again you show your complete ignorance of Scotland and Scottish people. I've lived in 5 different countries, including England and Scotland. Each were as unique and distinct in their history and culture IMO.
You must have pointed out my complete ignorance at least 50 times now on various threads. I get the message, I'm completely ignorant. Now to get back to the point you've missed completely; Scotland and Ireland are different, their situations aren't directly comparable, as you stated.
> This is actually not what I expected, when I first came to Scotland I was expecting that I was just going to a different part of the U.K. I quickly realised that I was wrong. It very much feels like it's own country.
In your intense familiarity with the UK I'm surprised you haven't already realised how diverse a place it is. I can safely inform you that there are even villages that very much feel like they are separate countries!
> But it's perfectly OK for others to experience things differently, what's unacceptable is to force only one way on others like you do. You have to realise that forcing down people's throat the identity, government, culture you want them to have isn't going to work, unless you are prepared to wipe them out one way or another.
I'm not aware that I've forced anyone to do anything and I'm certainly not prepared, able or equipped to 'wipe them out'. I know you like to get a froth on but you really should try to calm down dear.
> In any case, I don't think it really matters, what counts is how people want to be governed. If they prefer the Scottish Parliament to Westminster that is their choice and should be up to the to decide.
Of course they should. I just don't think it reasonable to have a continuous, rolling sequence of independence referenda until a government that has the support of a minority of the electorate achieves the result they desire.
> Seems far more sensible than waiting until Brexit becomes very hard to reverse and the Tories have had 5 years to run riot.
Why not? surely such a situation would result in a larger independence vote and not the marginal vote which only a few polls suggest is the very best the SNP could currently hope for?
> No, it has happened.
No, it hasn't happened. We're due to leave on the 31st, where upon we'll effectively still be in the EU in a period of transition until at least the 31st of December.
> Why not? surely such a situation would result in a larger independence vote and not the marginal vote which only a few polls suggest is the very best the SNP could currently hope for?
Because the EU citizens will start to leave, business which rely on the EU will go bust and other businesses would be forced to reconfigure their processes and suppliers in ways which would be incompatible with returning to the EU.
Even more importantly the Tories have a whole program of lunacy worked out which will involve removing civil liberties, privatising the NHS in preparation for US trade deal, removing power from courts, removing powers and/or budget from Scottish parliament and funding the Scottish Office to hand out unionist bribes and put union jacks everywhere. They are going to consolidate colonial power if we sit on our hands.
> So was Ireland. It Completely depends on your preference. If you don't recognise the legitimacy of Westminster your view will be different.
So am I free refuse to recognise the legitimacy of Holyrood (despite its legal status) just because I don't like the way it's working at the moment? Have you challenged the legitimacy of Westminater in court?
> Hmm... so you can rock up from Ulan Bator, speak not a word of English (or Gaelic), know nothing of Scotland, the UK or the union and have no cultural, personal or business ties to your new country but you should get the vote cos you've just acquired the keys to a one bedroom flat in Pollack?
Absolutely. If you are going to to subject yourself to the laws of a place for the foreseeable future, I think is is fair that you should have the right (and the duty, in fact) to participate in the democratic life of the place. From my point of view the language you speak, culture, or identity doesn't really matter.
You have a more ethnocentric view which is fine, but again it shouldn't be imposed on others.
> Meanwhile, a lifelong resident of aulde reekie, with Scots roots going back decades and an intense bond with his country, is disbarred from voting because his company posted him to Berwick and the house he's renting is a mile South of the border. How very fair!
I wouldn't have a problem with giving this person the right to vote but let's face it seems impossible to administer.
The simplest franchise that is fair is one that is based on residency.
> In your intense familiarity with the UK I'm surprised you haven't already realised how diverse a place it is. I can safely inform you that there are even villages that very much feel like they are separate countries!
I agree, In fact I'd say that London is completely different than the rest of England. Never said otherwise.
> I'm not aware that I've forced anyone to do anything and I'm certainly not prepared, able or equipped to 'wipe them out'. I know you like to get a froth on but you really should try to calm down dear.
Your argument is essentially that Scots who don't feel British are just wrong. If they don't it's because they don't understand their own culture, their own history etc etc...
> Of course they should. I just don't think it reasonable to have a continuous, rolling sequence of independence referenda until a government that has the support of a minority of the electorate achieves the result they desire.
Again, when they have referendums should be up for them to decide, according to their own democratic process. If a continuous rolling sequence of referendums is what people want I really don't see why it bothers you so much.
> So am I free refuse to recognise the legitimacy of Holyrood (despite its legal status) just because I don't like the way it's working at the moment? Have you challenged the legitimacy of Westminater in court?
If you don't recognise the legitimacy of Holyrood but do recognise the legitimacy of Westminster then you already have what you want, since Holyrood doesn't have any constitutional status of its own.
But frankly you are just losing the plot in utterly pointless legal arguments. What matters is : DO people in Scotland want to be ruled by politician in Westminsters are in Holyrood ? They should be allowed to chose, and be able to do so without requiring permission from the bosses.
> Because the EU citizens will start to leave, business which rely on the EU will go bust and other businesses would be forced to reconfigure their processes and suppliers in ways which would be incompatible with returning to the EU.
Damn, you've got me... after all, you wouldn't want to alienate your biggest business partner, would you?
Except, except....Scotland's trade with the rest of the UK is four times it's trade with the EU, a fact which has been pointed out to you many times and a point which you continually refuse to address. Your stated plan is to not only introduce a hard border with your biggest business partner, but also to adopt a separate currency. A plan which when contrasted with the arch Brexiteers insistence on 'sunny uplands', makes them seem the very model of fiscal probity and good sense.
> Even more importantly the Tories have a whole program of lunacy worked out which will involve removing civil liberties, privatising the NHS in preparation for US trade deal, removing power from courts, removing powers and/or budget from Scottish parliament and funding the Scottish Office to hand out unionist bribes and put union jacks everywhere. They are going to consolidate colonial power if we sit on our hands.
No argument from me on Tory lunacy, but suggested programs from the idiot fringe and actual implemented policy are two very different things.
> If you don't recognise the legitimacy of Holyrood but do recognise the legitimacy of Westminster then you already have what you want, since Holyrood doesn't have any constitutional status of its own.
> But frankly you are just losing the plot in utterly pointless legal arguments.
No. I'd just rather you and tom stuck to facts rather than making up nonsense.
> What matters is : DO people in Scotland want to be ruled by politicians in Westminsters or in Holyrood ? They should be allowed to chose, and be able to do so without requiring permission from the bosses.
I agree entirely. But at the moment they legally require permission. Either permission should be sought or they should seek to change the law. All this talk of UDI and so on is crazy.
This is the judgement of the International Court of Justice based on a submission by the UK government with regard to Kosovo. The UK totally snookered themselves with regard to insisting UK law can prevent independence via UDI. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of
the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect
of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor
State's law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.
5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration
of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are
fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of
the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be
predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
which the secession is occurring.
5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim
independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international
law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional
authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative
institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond
the scope of already conferred power.
You already have a Unionist bribe- the Barnet formula. .
You have been taking this for years.No squeals from Scotland for this.
In a partnership you can leave when you want. If the Scottish people are refused the right to choose their own form of government then the relationship is clearly one of exploitation and coercion. I'm pleased to say that you're right, when you say that Scotland has maintained its cultural identity and "sense of itself". It's stronger and more confident now that at any time I can remember. But that's been achieved against a headwind of "Britishness" and British values" being force fed to Scotland over many years. I could give you lots of examples.
> Absolutely. If you are going to to subject yourself to the laws of a place for the foreseeable future, I think is is fair that you should have the right (and the duty, in fact) to participate in the democratic life of the place. From my point of view the language you speak, culture, or identity doesn't really matter.
But in this case you're advocating a right to vote without any perceivable investment, attachment or involvement in a community. Surely a couple of years of tax paying, at the very least, isn't too much to ask in return for a vote?
> You have a more ethnocentric view which is fine, but again it shouldn't be imposed on others.
Not at all. No where have I indicated that I'm judging other cultures from the perspective of my own.
> I wouldn't have a problem with giving this person the right to vote but let's face it seems impossible to administer.
Hardly. British citizens who live abroad can register to vote in UK elections. What's the problem?
> Your argument is essentially that Scots who don't feel British are just wrong. If they don't it's because they don't understand their own culture, their own history etc etc...
Nope. Not even in the ball park.
> Again, when they have referendums should be up for them to decide, according to their own democratic process. If a continuous rolling sequence of referendums is what people want I really don't see why it bothers you so much.
But who's deciding, the Scottish people or the SNP? they aren't one and the same. If the polls start showing a clear mandate for indy ref 2 then fair enough. But they don't.
> In a partnership you can leave when you want. If the Scottish people are refused the right to choose their own form of government then the relationship is clearly one of exploitation and coercion.
I'm not really in disagreement with you over this, but I am totally with Sturgeon in insisting that a referendum must be sought through thge proper channels with anything else as an absolute last resort; not to do so is a recipe for divisiveness, chaois and an acrimonious separation.
> I'm pleased to say that you're right, when you say that Scotland has maintained its cultural identity and "sense of itself". It's stronger and more confident now that at any time I can remember. But that's been achieved against a headwind of "Britishness" and British values" being force fed to Scotland over many years. I could give you lots of examples.
Well, we are part of Britain, so I've no problem with British values in principle. And I don't think they have been forced on us; how can you force British values on British people?
> You already have a Unionist bribe- the Barnet formula. .
The UK take about £60 Billion from Scotland and very charitably give the Scottish Government a 'grant' of about £30 Billion. The Scottish Government is not allowed to borrow, it balances its budget.
Then the UK spend a lot more than £30 billion on stuff 'for the benefit of Scotland' that they do not consult Scotland on at all, much of which is actively against the interests of Scotland and claim Scotland has a deficit and more money is spent 'for the benefit of Scotland' than for other regions of the UK.
All the spending 'for the benefit of Scotland' on stuff which actually happens in England generates tax revenue and private sector activity in England which is booked as English further exaggerating the myth of England subsidising Scotland.
GERS is a joke. There needs to be another set of statistics based on Scotland being independent, cancelling a bunch of stuff (Trident, HS2, Crossrail etc), bringing other stuff back to Scotland - or outsourcing it somewhere cheaper than London - and implementing interest rate, tax and immigration policies suitable for Scotland's economy.
All the evidence and common sense suggests that Scotland has taken from it much more than it is given. In both financial and strategic terms. Why do you think the Westminster government is so reluctant to "play fair" when it comes to democracy in Scotland. The level of proportionate investment in Scotland under successive Uk governments has been scandalous. Derek Mackay has now launched a long overdue programme to determine in approximate terms a realistic financial forecast for an independent Scotland.Rather than having incomparable GERS figures touted around as somehow meaningful.
> All the evidence and common sense suggests that Scotland has taken from it much more than it is given. In both financial and strategic terms.
You and Tom keep insisting on this as though it's an established fact. You produce no figures to support this view and cite no sources backing it up. You continually ignore all requests for any evidence or links and when links and sources that are contra to your view are produced, you shout them down as unfair, biased and without legitimacy.
I'm sorry, but opinion devoid of any factual basis seems a very shaky platform from which to be calling for dissolving a union of 300 years standing.
I can only speak for myself Robert. But I'mScottish and not British. The generation before mine were punished for speaking gaelic in the classroom. My generation were taught more about the Corn Laws than about the Highland Clearances at school. And they were given texts by Shakespeare rather than Burns or MacDarmid. I think it's clearer than ever before in 2020, what for many years were promoted as "British" values are very different from those things that the Scottish people and polity regard as intrinsically positive. That's probably at the heart of why so may Scots now support independence. Not nationalism. And particularly why the vast majority of younger people in Scotland support self determination. I hope the next generation in Scotland learn more about John Maclean and Alasdair Gray than they do about Churchill and the Windsor family.
Archy Styrigg 16:50 Fri
> "GERS is a joke."
Is this the same GERS that 'is compiled by statisticians and economists in the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser of the Scottish Government, with the Scottish Government's chief statistician taking overall responsibility for the publication.'
"In November 2013, GERS figures from the most recent available report (financial year 2011/2012) were included within Scotland's Future, the Scottish Government's independence white paper. Based on the GERS report it was stated that, compared to the UK, Scotland: contributed more tax per head; had stronger public finances; and had much higher GDP per head."
Source for above 2 items: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Expenditure_and_Revenue_Scotland
"Based on ......" A fact you repeatably like to inform us all about. So, is it true, or is it rubbish if you think GERS is a joke? I'm confused!
> I can only speak for myself Robert. But I'm Scottish and not British.
Are you not confusing "British" and "English"? I'm all for Scottish history and literature being studied in Scottish schools, but not to exclusion of other British history and literature (some of which will be English). How far should this be taken? To what extent should schools in Orkney focus on Orcadian history and litereature to the exclusion of other Scottish (and British) literature?
> I can only speak for myself Robert. But I'mScottish and not British. The generation before mine were punished for speaking gaelic in the classroom. My generation were taught more about the Corn Laws than about the Highland Clearances at school. And they were given texts by Shakespeare rather than Burns or MacDarmid.
Why.. Scotland has had devolved education since 1939, so it's nothing to do Westminster, but your own ministry for education.
The fundamental point, which I thought we agreed upon, is that Scotland is a defined nation, or country, with culture, language, institutions, traditions and polity that define it. My assertion, which you might not agree with is that "Britishness" is fabricated to support the establishment and union that developed after 1707. I certainly feel no connection to it and I think many other probably feel that as well. Not just in Scotland but in England, Wales and certainly within identifiable communities in Northern Ireland. It's more alien now than at any other time. Other than the institutions of the UK which use that "brand" I've no idea what "Britishness" stands for other than a backward looking celebration of lost empire, an unwillingness to let go of two world wars and a dysfunctional royal family that are currently stretching satire to its limits.
> But in this case you're advocating a right to vote without any perceivable investment, attachment or involvement in a community. Surely a couple of years of tax paying, at the very least, isn't too much to ask in return for a vote?
Seems to me that if someone lives somewhere and subject themslves to the laws of that place then they are involved. If that's not enough for you just say you need to be resident for 5 years, I don't care, happy with that as well, I just want the rule to be the same for everybody, that is it.
And sure, anybody who pays taxes should definitely have the right to vote, however the right to vote should not be conditioned on paying taxes, otherwise you exclude anybody who doesn't work.
> Not at all. No where have I indicated that I'm judging other cultures from the perspective of my own.
This isn't what it means. It means that you base what constitutes "citizenship" in the broad sense of the term is based on bloodline or ethnic and cultural origins.
This "Jus Sanguinis" tradition you put yourself in is fine and in fact rather quite typically British, I have more affinity with the Jus Soli tradition. I believe Scotland is general has more affinity with it too.
> Hardly. British citizens who live abroad can register to vote in UK elections. What's the problem?
The British system is hardly a good example. A student from Cyprus who lived 2 months in the UK can vote in the EU referendum, but not a german person who lived and paid taxes in the UK for the past 50 years.
It's insane.
Moreover, you are wrong, after 15 years abroad you lose your right to vote.
Also what you describe isn't the same, as in this case the link is based on citizenship, not residence.
> Nope. Not even in the ball park.
That's exactly what you are doing though.
> But who's deciding.
It's simple, we have a Scottish parliament, the Scottish parliament decides.
Overseen by the Scottish Office aka Westminster in Scotland..... with a missionary zeal to promote "Britishness" and not a Scottish Government.
> My assertion, which you might not agree with is that "Britishness" is fabricated to support the establishment and union that developed after 1707. I certainly feel no connection to it and I think many other probably feel that as well.
I think that the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony captured the positive side of Britishness wonderfully.
> The fundamental point, which I thought we agreed upon, is that Scotland is a defined nation, or country, with culture, language, institutions, traditions and polity that define it. My assertion, which you might not agree with is that "Britishness" is fabricated to support the establishment and union that developed after 1707. I certainly feel no connection to it and I think many other probably feel that as well. Not just in Scotland but in England, Wales and certainly within identifiable communities in Northern Ireland. It's more alien now than at any other time. Other than the institutions of the UK which use that "brand" I've no idea what "Britishness" stands for other than a backward looking celebration of lost empire, an unwillingness to let go of two world wars and a dysfunctional royal family that are currently stretching satire to its limits.
All national identities are fabrications. Some people do feel absolutely British, some do not. That is fine. The problem arise when one group tries to force it down the throat of another.
> Overseen by the Scottish Office aka Westminster in Scotland..... with a missionary zeal to promote "Britishness" and not a Scottish Government.
Can the Scottish Office really overruule Holyrood's education policy?
So you are saying they have been deliberately over ruled on this specific matter of syllabuses?
In response to the last post which was talking about the role of the Ministry for Education in Scotland after 1939 and up until the point of devolved government in Scotland. Sadly, when my generation were in secondary school it was some time before Holyrood was "a thing".
Much as I like Danny Boyle is that really it? The Olympics Ceremony?
On a lighter note, I wonder what a post Brexit ceremony would look like"? I think they might put Mark Francois and Nigel Farage in charge!
rogerwebb 17:28 Fri
How about having the same franchise for general elections and constitutional referenda as they do in other EU countries?
You won't find one in which non citizens have a vote.
The Scottish referendum was exceptional because it allowed non citizens to vote.
The UK is out of step because it allowed non citizens to vote in a constitutional referendum (the Scottish one), not because it didn't allow them to in the EU one.
> Much as I like Danny Boyle is that really it? The Olympics Ceremony?
Not the ceremony itself (though I liked the humourous, self deprecating side of it, which I though was quite British), but what it celebrated.
> Seems to me that if someone lives somewhere and subject themslves to the laws of that place then they are involved. If that's not enough for you just say you need to be resident for 5 years, I don't care, happy with that as well, I just want the rule to be the same for everybody, that is it.
Wrong on two counts. Firstly just because you move to a place doesn't mean you subject yourself to local laws. Sure you can be prosecuted under local laws if you break them, but you're also free to ignore them and the social contract that goes with them. Secondly, physically moving somewhere hardly requires meaningful involvement with your host nation. Thousands of Brits retire to Spain where they continue to socialise only with other Brits, speak only English, eat British food, drink in British pubs and watch British TV. IMHO they should no more have a vote in Spanish national issues than I should.
> And sure, anybody who pays taxes should definitely have the right to vote, however the right to vote should not be conditioned on paying taxes, otherwise you exclude anybody who doesn't work.
Fair enough. It was simply an off the cuff example.
> This isn't what it means. It means that you base what constitutes "citizenship" in the broad sense of the term is based on bloodline or ethnic and cultural origins.
No, that isn't what ethnocentric means. I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you.
> This "Jus Sanguinis" tradition you put yourself in is fine and in fact rather quite typically British, I have more affinity with the Jus Soli tradition. I believe Scotland is general has more affinity with it too.
No idea what this means, cant be arsed looking it up but no doubt it's a further misrepresentation of my position.
> The British system is hardly a good example. A student from Cyprus who lived 2 months in the UK can vote in the EU referendum, but not a german person who lived and paid taxes in the UK for the past 50 years.
> It's insane.
> Moreover, you are wrong, after 15 years abroad you lose your right to vote.
No Rom, you wrote "I wouldn't have a problem with giving this person the right to vote but let's face it seems impossible to administer." This obviously is not the case and the 15 year limit is neither here nor there.
> Also what you describe isn't the same, as in this case the link is based on citizenship, not residence.
So? It's you arguing for residence based voting, not me.
> That's exactly what you are doing though.
> It's simple, we have a Scottish parliament, the Scottish parliament decides.
If it's so simple, why doesn't the SNP simply dissolve the union? (I'll give you a clue. It's not that simple).
> I can only speak for myself Robert. But I'mScottish and not British. The generation before mine were punished for speaking gaelic in the classroom. My generation were taught more about the Corn Laws than about the Highland Clearances at school. And they were given texts by Shakespeare rather than Burns or MacDarmid. I think it's clearer than ever before in 2020, what for many years were promoted as "British" values are very different from those things that the Scottish people and polity regard as intrinsically positive. That's probably at the heart of why so may Scots now support independence. Not nationalism. And particularly why the vast majority of younger people in Scotland support self determination. I hope the next generation in Scotland learn more about John Maclean and Alasdair Gray than they do about Churchill and the Windsor family.
Interesting. At school in England I was taught about the Wars of Independence, the various Jacobite rebellions, the clearances and the then Highlands and Islands development board (with essays on the Invergordon smelter) and I probably still remember most of A Man's A Man. History is not something Scottish schools appear to be strong on.
It should be.
The prejudice against speaking your own language or dialect was sadly endemic throughout the UK and quite probably every where else too.
(don't assume that to be pro union is to be anti Scottish or anti Gael)
> Wrong on two counts. Firstly just because you move to a place doesn't mean you subject yourself to local laws. Sure you can be prosecuted under local laws if you break them, but you're also free to ignore them and the social contract that goes with them.
Well not you're not free to ignore laws, you're certainly not free to not pay taxes !
> Secondly, physically moving somewhere hardly requires meaningful involvement with your host nation.
I consider choosing to make a place your home meaningful involvement.
> Thousands of Brits retire to Spain where they continue to socialise only with other Brits, speak only English, eat British food, drink in British pubs and watch British TV. IMHO they should no more have a vote in Spanish national issues than I should.
Ok, so are you saying that someone of Indian origin who lives in the U.K. but socialises only with other Indian, eats only Indian food, speak only Indian, and watch Indian TV, shouldn't be allowed to vote ?
> Fair enough. It was simply an off the cuff example.
Or rather another badly though out brain fart.
> No idea what this means
Seriously, what the f*ck.
> No Rom, you wrote "I wouldn't have a problem with giving this person the right to vote but let's face it seems impossible to administer." This obviously is not the case and the 15 year limit is neither here nor there.
Check your facts. There is a 15 year limits. You don't even know the electoral franchise of your own country, amazing.
And yes, it would be hard to administer, you can have a British citizenship but there is no Scottish citizenship, it would be hard to define who is and isn't Scottish.
BTW in 2014 the SNP wanted to allow people outside Scotland but with roots in Scotland to also vote in indyref, this was rejected by the U.K. government and the electoral commission.
> If it's so simple, why doesn't the SNP simply dissolve the union? (I'll give you a clue. It's not that simple)
The SNP doesn't have this power not is anybody is arguing for the SNP to have this power.
Instead of taking rubbish, tell us exactly why you think it would be so wrong for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to decide on when and whether to hold an independence referendum ?
> How about having the same franchise for general elections and constitutional referenda as they do in other EU countries?
> You won't find one in which non citizens have a vote.
It would already be fairer. But ultimately I think that you don't have universal suffrage if a large chunk of the population is excluded.
Restricting to citizens works when you have a small proportion of non citizens, but that's not the case anymore.
> The Scottish referendum was exceptional because it allowed non citizens to vote.
And it was fine. New Zealand recently adopted the right to vote for non citizens. This is the way to go in my view.
> The UK is out of step because it allowed non citizens to vote in a constitutional referendum (the Scottish one), not because it didn't allow them to in the EU one.
Wrong, the U.K. did allow many non citizens to vote in the EU referendum, just not most EU citizens.
> Ok, so are you saying that someone of Indian origin who lives in the U.K. but socialises only with other Indian, eats only Indian food, speak only Indian, and watch Indian TV, shouldn't be allowed to vote ?
"Indian" isn't a language Rom.
> Or rather another badly though out brain fart.
Dunno. You'd be the expert on that, as you've just rather neatly demonstrated.
> Seriously, what the f*ck.
Do I really need to dig out the crayons?
> Check your facts. There is a 15 year limits. You don't even know the electoral franchise of your own country, amazing.
Never said otherwise. Following your all too familiar MO, you've introduced a canard which, no doubt, you'll continue to flaccidly pursue in preference to pursuing an argument you can't win.
> And yes, it would be hard to administer, you can have a British citizenship but there is no Scottish citizenship, it would be hard to define who is and isn't Scottish.
Wow. If you can't even devise a method of establishing Scottish citizenship how on Earth do you imagine you'll be able to establish Scotland as an independent country?
> BTW in 2014 the SNP wanted to allow people outside Scotland but with roots in Scotland to also vote in indyref, this was rejected by the U.K. government and the electoral commission.
> The SNP doesn't have this power not is anybody is arguing for the SNP to have this power.
I'm very glad 'not is anybody is arguing for the SNP to have this power'... did you just let slip another brain fart Rom?
> Instead of taking rubbish, tell us exactly why you think it would be so wrong for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to decide on when and whether to hold an independence referendum ?
With syntax as challenging as yours, I'd hold off from accusing others of talking rubbish.
> "Indian" isn't a language Rom.
Instead of engaging in pointless and rather transparent pedantry, try answering the question: Do you think that someone from India who lives in the UK without following a "British" way of life, as per your definition, should not be allowed to vote ?
> I'm very glad 'not is anybody is arguing for the SNP to have this power'... did you just let slip another brain fart Rom?
Pedantry is the unmistakeable mark of cluelessness.
> With syntax as challenging as yours, I'd hold off from accusing others of talking rubbish.
As usual, unable to answer any of the tough questions.
I'll ask again: Why shouldn't the Scottish people be able to decide by themselves, through the Scottish parliament , when and how often they have a referendum on the question of Independence ? Why should they need Westminster's permission ?
I kept an eye on this post cos I've had a sneaking suspicion for some time now that when you get especially riled you resort to glove puppets to dislike your detractors....and low and behold, within minutes of you posting a whole host of miraculous likes and dislikes appear!
of course, you'll receive my whole hearted apology if these posters want to declare themselves.
> History is not something Scottish schools appear to be strong on.
When I was at school, in primary school we got elocution lessons which were designed to make us talk with an RP southern English accent. All the history course I did at secondary was about Westminster/English politics - Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli etc.
Just a couple of years ago my daughter was asked a question in history 'Who was the king in XXXX' where XXXX was before the union of the crowns. The answer she was expected to give was the English king. They'd not even considered that Scotland might have had a different king.
It's not a coincidence, it was government policy to promote unionism. The SNP hasn't completely reversed it as yet.
They are citizens of Europe and Scotland is in Europe.
EU citizens should have got to vote in the EU referendum too. They didn't and citizens of commonwealth countries were allowed to because the Tory Brexiteers had far too much influence on the arrangements.
The way EU citizens and their family members are being treated by the UK is absolutely shameful. For people who have years of pension contributions locked up in UK schemes it is pretty much theft.
> They are citizens of Europe and Scotland is in Europe.
> EU citizens should have got to vote in the EU referendum too. They didn't and citizens of commonwealth countries were allowed to because the Tory Brexiteers had far too much influence on the arrangements.
Exactly. Someone from India in the country for two months could vote in it, but not a German person who lived in the country for 40 years.
Given the tight margin it is completely undeniable that the exclusion of the 3.5m EU citizens made the result.
I don't really want Scottish independence, mostly because I don't see the point to create extra barriers between people, but that's exactly the kind of total bullshit that makes me think this may be a necessity.
Don't the Scots have their own version of The National Curriculum?
This appears to your version: https://scotlandscurriculum.scot/4/
I can't find a definitive answer to who wrote it, but if it is Scottish and your teachers 'choose' to teach English history over yours ,isn't that your problem?
I notice not a single English 'sponsor' from the list at the page bottom.
In reply to Archy Styrigg:
> Don't the Scots have their own version of The National Curriculum?
> This appears to your version: https://scotlandscurriculum.scot/4/
> I can't find a definitive answer to who wrote it, but if it is Scottish and your teachers 'choose' to teach English history over yours ,isn't that your problem?
> I notice not a single English 'sponsor' from the list at the page bottom.
Several prominent historians have noted that the teaching of history in Britain is extremely anglo-centric. Although most western countries have a similar problem, it's particularly acute in the UK.
Dr.S at work 21:11 Fri
Quite a lot of Anglo Saxons in Scotland.
> The way EU citizens and their family members are being treated by the UK is absolutely shameful. For people who have years of pension contributions locked up in UK schemes it is pretty much theft.
I make no comment as to whether its right or wrong. But there is no EU country (except certain exceptions in the UK) where the citizens of another EU country get a vote in a general election or constitutional referendum.