Will a Conservative win only increase Scottish nationalism ?

McArmalite

Talking to a Scotsman over a pint yesterday, he told me that though he is a Scottish nationalist and obviously eagerly wants Scotland to be become independent ASAP, that he would actually welcome a Tory vistory. A bit perplexed I enquired why and he predicted that it would make the relationship to England even more unpopuliar with the Scots. Interestingly, he also said that as the demands for Scotland to break away rises, the inverse seems to happen with some of the English saying sort of " to hell with it, lets get rid of them " !!!!!!! He also pointed out that in the recent European Parliament elections the SNP vote increased significantly, by 9.4% to 29.1%.

Needless to say, the knock on effects regarding the future of the state of britain will have serious questions for the unionists and shouts of No surrender, No, Never, Never are ringing more and more hollow bearing in mind that in the six counties 2007 Assembly elections the Nationalist was vote 293,767 to 335,888 unionist, a gap of just 42,121.

But anyway wouldn't it be the greatest irony that a Conservative win would only increase Scottish nationalism ?

TheZohanS

No.

Biggins

No. They won't advance separation or be seen to be even an advocate for it.
Conservatives will also want to hold onto Scotland too - if only for the oil up north and the revenue rights.

McArmalite

Biggins wrote: »

No. They won't advance separation or be seen to be even an advocate for it.
Conservatives will also want to hold onto Scotland too - if only for the oil up north and the revenue rights.

But surely if it's effect is to increase voting and support for Scottish independence - which it probably will - then it's a weakening of the union. I cann't see the Scots been won over with Tory claptrap of Land of Hope and Glory and patronising comments about the Scottish regiments in battles against the Zulus, the trenches in Belgium etc endearing the Scottish to remain united to England ?

philologos

If anything the Tories will be more opposed to Scottish nationalism than Labour were.

K-9

The oil is predicted to run out soon, so good time to go on their own!

Hagar

Moved to Politics. Better suited to there.

irish_bob

the torys under cameron are only marginally more right wing than labour and the majority in scotland dont want independance anyhow , support for such has always been greatly exagerated

Red Sleeping Beauty

irish_bob wrote: »

the torys under cameron are only marginally more right wing than labour and the majority in scotland dont want independance anyhow , support for such has always been greatly exagerated

Where did you get this information from ?

gurramok

The Scots do have bitter memories of been the first place where poll tax was introduced by the Tories.
I do think the OP is onto something. A right-wing govt in Westminister which could treat the Scots poorly can have a boosting effect to Scottish nationalism.

thelastditch

I was talking to a Scots man last week about this very issue (over some herbal tea) and his thinking was, that The SNP have only done reasonably well as Labour has been in power. Labour has not been popular in Scotland, but The Scots still re-call Thatcher and the poll tax (as if it was only introduced in Scotland) and as a result turned to the 'tartan tories'. Once Labour are out of power and David 'Jock' Cameron firmly in charge, then The Scottish working class will drift back to The Labour Party weakening support for the 'tartan tories'. Game over - as in British Ulster.

sceptre

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Where did you get this information from ?

I assume from the Sunday Times last March, the last time a poll was done.

33% in favour of independence, 53% against it according to them at the time. Of course, these Scottish polls tens to waver in opinion like a west Orkney wind.

Interestingly it was also the Sunday Times that pushed the notion that a Con win would push more people towards an independent way of thinking, see an article by Jason Allardyce (estimating that 24% of the no or don't knows would swap to a yes) last September for that.

Ironically, an independent Scotland would put the Conservatives in a very strong parliamentary position in the remainder of the UK - Labour rely heavily on Scotland for Westminster seats. In the 2005 election, Labour won 41 seats in Scotland, far ahead of the Liberal Democrats' tally of 11, the SNP's six and the single win by the Conservatives. And that's Labour at a low point - because of the reduction in parliamentary seats in Scotland there were only 59 seats on offer compared with 72 in the previous election.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I watched a BBC Scotland show and it seems the results of polls vary greatly depending on how you phrase the question. I assume that's what you mean by opinion wavering ?

Westminister can resume parliamentary control of Scotland at any point so a referendum tomorrow wouldn't be legal. I'd imagine they'd need to have the referendum, win it and then open up democratic talks with Westminster.

It's a complicated issue that can't be easily boiled down but if (some say when!) the Conservatives come in to power it could indeed add momentum to the case for independence based on the antipathy some Scottish people may still have against the Conservatives.

For reference : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4692490.ece

rant_and_rave

McArmalite wrote: »

But anyway wouldn't it be the greatest irony that a Conservative win would only increase Scottish nationalism ?

It depends. Cameron has moved the Tory Party to the center so in theory the Thatcherite excesses of the past will not be repeated. However if a new Tory government implements vicious cuts in public expenditure then Scotland will suffer dis-proportionally because it's economy is much more dependent on public spending much of which is subsidised by English tax payers. The Scottish have limited room for manouver. Their economy is tied to the UK. They would need to develop a much more diversified non state dependent economy before considering withdrawal from the UK. North Sea oil is running out so they cannot hedge against that.

sceptre

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I watched a BBC Scotland show and it seems the results of polls vary greatly depending on how you phrase the question. I assume that's what you mean by opinion wavering ?

Actually I didn't - from looking at the polls over the years and just examining the questions that are close to the same or the same, the answers seem to vary depending on the state of the economy for example. And usually when people are that easily swayed over the something that's not necessarily a direct primary factor it demonstrates that they aren't all that bothered either way (in other words it's not up that high on their list of priorities compared to other things, in this case how much their toast costs)

But you're totally correct - the answers vary wildly based on exactly what question is asked and how it's asked - some of the questions have differed quite a lot over the years with obvious differences in the opinion poll figures (and obviously the 1979 referendum).

Given that no Westminster parliament can bind a future Westminster parliament, it's entirely correct from a constitutional point of view that the Scottish parliament could be abolished and devolution abandoned by an Act of Westminster in the morning. However, all the main UK parties have formally stated that devolution can't be abandoned without the consent of the population in the area affected (in this case Scotland). There are two recent complications (or from the Scottish point of view, simplicities) in - the recognition by the UK of a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that a clear and ambiguous question can not only make Canada divisible but also Quebec. The two decisions may well be mutually contradictory if anyone else feels like taking the time to examine them in detail. I would imagine that in practical terms though, the order of events would have to be referendum authorised by the Scottish parliament, referendum passed as an unambiguous question by the Scottish people, negotiations begin between Holyrood and Westminster, Scotland finds itself outside the EU and NATO and starts negotiations to get back in. They might well want a fifth one after all that: the "are you really really sure?" referendum (the Eu negotiations can be done before the door is closed) . That's five successive tickboxes and that's not a small number.

thelastditch

I think some people on here seriously overestimate the will of regions of modern, wealthy states to break away and set up their own state. And that's what's required - WILL. For most people in Scotland blathering away to a variety of polling organisations on a variety of questions means absolutely sweet FA. The test would come when it actually mattered how the independence question was answered in reality. At this point people's natural conservatism would kick in. That's why Scottish Independence would only come 'live' as an issue if 55/60% of those polled favoured independence and did so over a number of years (perhaps 5?). Less than this figure and the fear factor would wipe out any majority in a real poll. Exactly the same analysis applies to a peaceful and relatively prosperous NI.

thelastditch

It's interesting to note, that young people (who own next to nothing and haven't yet experienced how cruel life can be and are still able to run to their parents if need be for help) tend to be the most ardent separatists in most such cases. Opinion poll data tends to bare this out.

gurramok

thelastditch wrote: »

I think some people on here seriously overestimate the will of regions of modern, wealthy states to break away and set up their own state. And that's what's required - WILL. For most people in Scotland blathering away to a variety of polling organisations on a variety of questions means absolutely sweet FA. The test would come when it actually mattered how the independence question was answered in reality. At this point people's natural conservatism would kick in. That's why Scottish Independence would only come 'live' as an issue if 55/60% of those polled favoured independence and did so over a number of years (perhaps 5?). Less than this figure and the fear factor would wipe out any majority in a real poll. Exactly the same analysis applies to a peaceful and relatively prosperous NI.

What makes 55% or 60% a majority, why not 51%?

Why do you keep bringing NI into this subject?

thelastditch

The 55/60% figure in favour of independence applies to opinion polls. This would be necessary as a fear factor reducing Nationalist sentiment would kick in in an actual independence vote.

Red Sleeping Beauty

sceptre wrote: »

Actually I didn't - from looking at the polls over the years and just examining the questions that are close to the same or the same, the answers seem to vary depending on the state of the economy for example. And usually when people are that easily swayed over the something that's not necessarily a direct primary factor it demonstrates that they aren't all that bothered either way (in other words it's not up that high on their list of priorities compared to other things, in this case how much their toast costs)

But you're totally correct - the answers vary wildly based on exactly what question is asked and how it's asked - some of the questions have differed quite a lot over the years with obvious differences in the opinion poll figures (and obviously the 1979 referendum).

Given that no Westminster parliament can bind a future Westminster parliament, it's entirely correct from a constitutional point of view that the Scottish parliament could be abolished and devolution abandoned by an Act of Westminster in the morning. However, all the main UK parties have formally stated that devolution can't be abandoned without the consent of the population in the area affected (in this case Scotland). There are two recent complications (or from the Scottish point of view, simplicities) in - the recognition by the UK of a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that a clear and ambiguous question can not only make Canada divisible but also Quebec. The two decisions may well be mutually contradictory if anyone else feels like taking the time to examine them in detail. I would imagine that in practical terms though, the order of events would have to be referendum authorised by the Scottish parliament, referendum passed as an unambiguous question by the Scottish people, negotiations begin between Holyrood and Westminster, Scotland finds itself outside the EU and NATO and starts negotiations to get back in. They might well want a fifth one after all that: the "are you really really sure?" referendum (the Eu negotiations can be done before the door is closed) . That's five successive tickboxes and that's not a small number.

As I understand it, that'd be the best path to go down - referendum and then negotiations with Westminister. Perhaps there could be EU negotiations parallel or something but yeah, it won't be a a caustic sort of "we voted for our independence so now get outa our country yis bollixes " kinda thing.

OS119

Alan Rouge wrote: »

As I understand it, that'd be the best path to go down - referendum and then negotiations with Westminister. Perhaps there could be EU negotiations parallel or something but yeah, it won't be a a caustic sort of "we voted for our independence so now get outa our country yis bollixes " kinda thing.

it might be if the negotiations don't go well.

given that England thinks it pays for Scotland's welfare state, and Scotland thinks it keeps HM Treasury afloat with oil revenues, one of them is likely to be dissappionted with the financial split. when that happens you need a scapegoat, and the scapegoat is likely to be those of the 'other' side who live in 'your' country.

example: SNP wins a few elections on the trot and decides to go for an independence referendum which it wins (lets say this is against a background of UK wide economic austerity, inwhich, of course, the SNP say that Scotland is getting the sh*tty end of the stick). the Scottish Government starts negotiations with Westminster and the EU/NATO/UN/OECD etc... to work out the mechanics of divorce and to shape the 'post divorce' scene, the 'treaty' is then arrived at and all sides proclaim it a victory - well, we are still in election cycles - and a second, 'are you happy with this result' referendum is held, and won.

Scotland divorces from the UK.

then it transpires that the 'oil wealth' that the SNP have been harping on about for 40 years is all gone, and the SNP government have to start making deep, nasty cuts in all the nice things that Scotland was told it could afford if only it kept its wealth to itself. now, who is going to get the blame: a) the SNP government who stand up and say "sorry, we made a complete bollocks of that and mislead you all in pursuit of a vainglorious political goal, but hey, remember Braveheart!", or b) the 'bastard' English government (and by extention, the 500,000 English people who live in Scotland) who tricked us out of our inheritence and made us paupers?

i'll give you 3 guesses, but you'll only need one.

it works either way round, somebody - both even - will think they got the soggy biscuit, and in the post-independence fever there'll be no humility or self-blame, it all be the other guys fault. it happened pretty much everywhere else in Europe after borders moved or countries separated, there's no fundamental reason why it shouldn't happen in (post) UK.

Fratton Fred

I just asked this very questionof a young lad from Edinburgh who is studying politics at Strathclyde uni.

Firsty he doubts very much is there is the appetite needed for full independance, when push comes to shove, he reckons most scots will want to keep things as they are now.

secondly, he thinks that currently people vote SNP in the UK epections because they are not happy with Labour, but labour never looked like losing the last three elections, next time, there may be a big swing from SNP to Labour because the Scots will want to keep the Tories out.

Fr Tod Umptious

thelastditch wrote: »

It's interesting to note, that young people (who own next to nothing and haven't yet experienced how cruel life can be and are still able to run to their parents if need be for help) tend to be the most ardent separatists in most such cases. Opinion poll data tends to bare this out.

That's cos young people tend to be more radical in all aspects of politics

They grown out of it.

drakshug

I'm a lifelong Scottish Nationalist from a Nationalist family. What we need is another Thatcher. Brown isn't evil enough. Cameron is a pussy. We need someone who talks down to us and treats us as ****. We need what the English are experiencing under Brown's Scottish labour hegemony, a cabal that isn't helping Scotland but pissing off the English.
On Second thoughts, we need Brown to stay in power, keep free Uni places in Scotland and a progressive Scottish parliament etc. Then, the English will ask us for independence, if only to get away from us 'sweaty sock jocks'.
To paraphrase Renton, how could that buncha effete **** end up ruling everyone else? Scotland will never be free until we can get rid of what the English propaganda has instilled in us..........that we can't live without them. We can and we will and hopefully in my lifetime. Then I'll go home.

Kev_ps3

drakshug wrote: »

I'm a lifelong Scottish Nationalist from a Nationalist family. What we need is another Thatcher. Brown isn't evil enough. Cameron is a pussy. We need someone who talks down to us and treats us as ****. We need what the English are experiencing under Brown's Scottish labour hegemony, a cabal that isn't helping Scotland but pissing off the English.
On Second thoughts, we need Brown to stay in power, keep free Uni places in Scotland and a progressive Scottish parliament etc. Then, the English will ask us for independence, if only to get away from us 'sweaty sock jocks'.
To paraphrase Renton, how could that buncha effete **** end up ruling everyone else? Scotland will never be free until we can get rid of what the English propaganda has instilled in us..........that we can't live without them. We can and we will and hopefully in my lifetime. Then I'll go home.

Great post. I hope you do one day go home to a free Scotland, no people should be ruled by another, esp by the bloodthirsty English.

A Dub in Glasgo

Mr Murphy would know all about being bloodthirsty seeing as he was a butcher

djpbarry

McArmalite wrote: »

He also pointed out that in the recent European Parliament elections the SNP vote increased significantly, by 9.4% to 29.1%.

But they still have feck-all seats in Westminster, where it really matters.

nesf

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Great post. I hope you do one day go home to a free Scotland, no people should be ruled by another, esp by the bloodthirsty English.

Bloodthirsty is just trolling, less of it please.

Fratton Fred

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Great post. I hope you do one day go home to a free Scotland, no people should be ruled by another, esp by the bloodthirsty English.

I fail to see how you can say one country rules the other.

The seat of power is on London, but the Scots have every chance (As is the case at the moment) of having as much power as the English.

as for Blood thirsty, again, how can you differentiate between the Scots and the English?

the British Empire was very much a collaboration between the English and the Scots.

Red Sleeping Beauty

It's really hard to tell what effect this fiasco with releasing Megrahi will have on the independence campaign. The SNP sure have had a fair bit of mud slung at them.