Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Scottish independence

1596062646583

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 21,551 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    The SNP are also ideologically too diverse in my opinion (left, right, center) to survive outside of the front of the independence movement.

    Only strong independence movement holds it together.

    Lose the leadership with Sturgeon and there is every prospect of those ideological strings being pulled and the whole deck of the party collapsing and splitting on contradictory bread and butter policy objectives.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    Lose the leadership with Sturgeon and there is every prospect of those ideological strings being pulled and the whole deck of the party collapsing and splitting on contradictory bread and butter policy objectives.


    That's the danger and it could be very costly.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 26,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    First Up wrote: »
    That's the danger and it could be very costly.

    It hasn't happened with any other SNP leader AFAIK, though obviously open to correction, so why is now so especially fraught since its inception in the 30s?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    pixelburp wrote:
    It hasn't happened with any other SNP leader AFAIK, though obviously open to correction, so why is now so especially fraught since its inception in the 30s?

    Because an independent Scotland will need strong and decisive leadership from the moment independence is ratified. An SNP led government is the only realistic prospect and they will have more than enough to occupy them without the distraction of family quarrels.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,551 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    pixelburp wrote: »
    It hasn't happened with any other SNP leader AFAIK, though obviously open to correction, so why is now so especially fraught since its inception in the 30s?

    The party has grown a lot but you need to look at the parts under the bonnet as a result.

    It's a mish mash of competing economic and social ideologies and it's the independence policy that holds it together.

    Once independence is done or is consigned to the dustbin in a second vote I imagine they'll split.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 26,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    The party has grown a lot but you need to look at the parts under the bonnet as a result.

    It's a mish mash of competing economic and social ideologies and it's the independence policy that holds it together.

    Once independence is done or is consigned to the dustbin in a second vote I imagine they'll split.

    I never asserted otherwise but I was curious why Sturgeon was so especially mission critical in this case. "Once independence is done" would be a 10 year project in the first place so entirely possible Sturgeon would be out of the picture anyway. There's this presumption that having operated as a broad church for nearly 100 years, the SNP would implode at the finishing line. I don't see evidence of this beyond the current tribunal. Which, given modern politics, could be old hat once the real business of elections come along.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    Once independence is done or is consigned to the dustbin in a second vote I imagine they'll split.

    They used to be nicknamed the Tartan Tories so it's easy to see where the cracks might appear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    I would expect a realignment of Scottish politics once independence is achieved, but certainly not overnight. As pixelburp points out, actually transitioning to independence, even after a referendum win, will be a project of several years. That, and the time needed for a party realignment to emerge, is likely to exceed Sturgeon's natural shelf-life as First Minister; she could well be President of the Scottish Republic ensconced in Holyrood Palace by the time the party system reorientates itself and Scotland chooses Europe's first Green Prime Minister. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,662 ✭✭✭✭ BlitzKrieg


    Once independence is done or is consigned to the dustbin in a second vote I imagine they'll split.

    But depending on the structure of an independent scotland's election process the snp splitting after achieving it might not be a bad thing for the party or Scotland?

    If they take a Proportional voting system like STV that Ireland has it wouldnt hurt the parties themselves to split into smaller more focused bodies

    nor would it hurt the government formed if it's a number of the moderate parties forming on broad lines. I could see scottish green party making some headway as a minor partner in some early coalitions.

    It might benefit those former snp parties if they are able to work in a coalition with each other and have some firm clear lines between them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭ Water John


    Blitz, that's a very good reasoning, it might be all for the better if the SNP realigned after Indy. Scotland would be well served by coalition Govn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    Water John wrote:
    Blitz, that's a very good reasoning, it might be all for the better if the SNP realigned after Indy. Scotland would be well served by coalition Govn't.


    I strongly disagree. An independent Scotland will need a decisive government as fast as possible. The last thing it can afford is time spent haggling in public. That's the sort of uncertainty that kills investor confidence and drives business away.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 87,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Capt'n Midnight


    First Up wrote: »
    I strongly disagree. An independent Scotland will need a decisive government as fast as possible. The last thing it can afford is time spent haggling in public. That's the sort of uncertainty that kills investor confidence and drives business away.
    Good thing they are still in the 'strong and stable' UK eh? :rolleyes:

    I can't see how a new Scottish government will change things more than Brexit already has.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    I can't see how a new Scottish government will change things more than Brexit already has.

    I assume they would be trying to make things better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,662 ✭✭✭✭ BlitzKrieg


    First Up wrote: »
    I strongly disagree. An independent Scotland will need a decisive government as fast as possible. The last thing it can afford is time spent haggling in public. That's the sort of uncertainty that kills investor confidence and drives business away.

    a bit of an aside but

    Frankly I'd argue the devisiveness needs to be done now.

    A mistake in the first scottish referendum was the nature of what an independent scotland was left blank and David Cameron bluntly pushed to fill that gap with horror stories of debt, being kicked out of the EU and loss of support from westminster (oh look all that happened anyway) but I'd argue it was a mistake in the referendum to leave the nature of an independent scotland open like that.

    I think the SNP if they are going to put forward another referendum they need to do a 'roadmap' constitution now, even if it's not legally binding they should set the terms of what they intend independent scotland to be.

    What position the royal family will have

    how they intend to handle the border with the UK (I assume Scotland can propose joining the common travel area as an independent nation?)

    the structure of the government

    the actual territory they are claiming (set a definite this is what we are aiming for in relation to the north sea etc)


    None of it would be binding but it would set the talking points and not let some clever tory turn the topic in the referendum itself.

    Basically what Brexit should have been. But wasnt and thats a big part of why it's such a massive sh*tshow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    BlitzKrieg wrote:
    I think the SNP if they are going to put forward another referendum they need to do a 'roadmap' constitution now, even if it's not legally binding they should set the terms of what they intend independent scotland to be.

    Agreed. A vision of what an independent Scotland would be (and how to get there) would both help gather votes and set the agenda for the future.

    The trick will be getting consensus to articulate what that will look like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    Agreed. A vision of what an independent Scotland would be (and how to get there) would both help gather votes and set the agenda for the future.

    The trick will be getting consensus to articulate what that will look like.
    They managed it last time round. I don't see any reason to think it would be beyond them this time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    Water John wrote: »
    Blitz, that's a very good reasoning, it might be all for the better if the SNP realigned after Indy. Scotland would be well served by coalition Govn't.
    First Up wrote: »
    I strongly disagree. An independent Scotland will need a decisive government as fast as possible. The last thing it can afford is time spent haggling in public. That's the sort of uncertainty that kills investor confidence and drives business away.
    Coalition governments don't have to be indecisive. As people in most modern European democracies are well aware.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 87,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Capt'n Midnight


    Northern Ireland and Belgium have proved you can keep going without a functioning government for years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland (among others) have proved that you can have perfectly functional coalition governments.

    The notion that "coalition" = "unstable, indecisive" is one of the articles of faith that defenders of the first-past-the-post election system cling blindly to in the teeth of easily-observed evidence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland (among others) have proved that you can have perfectly functional coalition governments.

    The notion that "coalition" = "unstable, indecisive" is one of the articles of faith that defenders of the first-past-the-post election system cling blindly to in the teeth of easily-observed evidence.

    And clung to it they did, until they had a CON/LD coalition and then all of a sudden it was the bees knees.

    So much so they brought in the FTP Act to stop the LDs legging it at the first sight of trouble.

    It will forever blow my mind how British exceptionalism seeps into EVERYTHING they do.

    Our inter-government period which coincided with the outbreak of Covid was one of our better governing periods since the Rainbow coalition as far as I'm concerned.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    And clung to it they did, until they had a CON/LD coalition and then all of a sudden it was the bees knees.
    While the single-party Tory governments the UK has had since then have been unremittingly awful, each worse than the last.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    While the single-party Tory governments the UK has had since then have been unremittingly awful, each worse than the last.

    I can't wait for the next one. Hopefully the last one the UK ever has.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland (among others) have proved that you can have perfectly functional coalition governments.

    All of which are established and proven political and economic entities. An independent Scotland will be neither.

    Scotland has to prove that it can cope with separation from the UK which takes 60% of it's exports and through which it sends half the rest. All while finding its way in the world as an independent country.

    This is not a game. Capital is mobile and capital goes where it is made most welcome.

    No time for political experiments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    All of which are established and proven political and economic entities. An independent Scotland will be neither.

    Scotland has to prove that it can cope with separation from the UK which takes 60% of it's exports and through which it sends half the rest. All while finding its way in the world as an independent country.

    This is not a game. Capital is mobile and capital goes where it is made most welcome.

    No time for political experiments.
    Independence is a political experiment. On this reasoning no country would ever seek independnce from a larger union.

    But the reality is that Europe is largely made up of countries that left larger unions to be come independent. So clearly this consideration is not something which, in the real world, systematically prevents countries from seeking and achieving independence.

    For the record, I think the notion that a post-independence realignment of the party system in Scotland will lead to a flight of capital is just silly. Political party realignments are a common occurrence; off the top of my head I can't think of any that led to a crisis of investor confidence and a flight of capital.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    But the reality is that Europe is largely made up of countries that left larger unions to be come independent. So clearly this consideration is not something which, in the real world, systematically prevents countries from seeking and achieving independence.

    They all did so when global trade and capital movement was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

    Every business (local or foreign owned) in Scotland will be inundated with offers to move south if their business depends on England, or to an EU country (including Ireland) if they have wider ambition. Any uncertainty in Scotland will add to that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,325 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    They all did so when global trade and capital movement was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
    Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all became independent between the signing of the Single European Act and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, and Slovakia and the Czech Republic after the Maastricht Treaty. This isn't ancient history at all.
    First Up wrote: »
    Every business (local or foreign owned) in Scotland will be inundated with offers to move south if their business depends on England, or to an EU country (including Ireland) if they have wider ambition. Any uncertainty in Scotland will add to that.
    There's a real issue here but, trust me, party realignments are not going to make a material difference to it. That's a giant red herring. Any decisions of the kind you contemplate are likely to be made long before the expected party realignment starts to unfold. And, anyway, party realignments are not scary things for investors.

    As for businesses being tempted to recolate from Scotland to an EU country, that temptation already exists, obviously. If anything, independence reduces the tempation, since there'd be a strong expectation that Scotland would rejoin the EU, making relocation for an EU-facing business unecessary.

    So, when you strip away the nonsense, the real issue is the incentive for English-facing businesses in Scotland (and Welsh- and NI-facing businesses, but there aren't so many of those) to relocate to rump-UK. That certainly needs to be carefully looked at. It's not going to be materially affected by party realignments in Scotland, but it is going to be materially affected by the terms of separation agreed between Scotland and rump-UK. The big unknown here is not the likely position of the Scottish government in the negatiatons about separation, but the likely position of the UK government.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,763 ✭✭✭✭ First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all became independent between the signing of the Single European Act and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, and Slovakia and the Czech Republic after the Maastricht Treaty. This isn't ancient history at all.
    None were competing with their former big brothers and all had significant EU support.
    Peregrinus wrote:
    There's a real issue here but, trust me, party realignments are not going to make a material difference to it. That's a giant red herring. Any decisions of the kind you contemplate are likely to be made long before the expected party realignment starts to unfold. And, anyway, party realignments are not scary things for investors.

    The issue isn't party realignment per se. It is the risk of uncertainty over policy and market access while they sort it out.
    Peregrinus wrote:
    As for businesses being tempted to recolate from Scotland to an EU country, that temptation already exists, obviously. If anything, independence reduces the tempation, since there'd be a strong expectation that Scotland would rejoin the EU, making relocation for an EU-facing business unecessary.
    Expectation yes; but no certainty and no timeline. There is also the not insignificant matter of getting through the UK to get to the EU.
    Peregrinus wrote:
    The big unknown here is not the likely position of the Scottish government in the negatiatons about separation, but the likely position of the UK government.

    They are both unknowns but Scotland has control over one of them. This is all about competitive advantage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    First Up wrote: »
    All of which are established and proven political and economic entities. An independent Scotland will be neither.

    Scotland has to prove that it can cope with separation from the UK which takes 60% of it's exports and through which it sends half the rest. All while finding its way in the world as an independent country.

    This is not a game. Capital is mobile and capital goes where it is made most welcome.

    No time for political experiments.

    You really are one for finding the negatives in almost anything.

    You do realise that the Scottish parliament is elected using the Additional Member system? It was specifically employed to hamstring the SNP and to ensure coalition and consensus government.

    The current government like the one previous, are a minority and are governing with help from the Greens.

    No my memory isn't that great, but I just can't think of anywhere that was governed like that at all the last few years on either island... Can you?

    Scottish politics isn't as adversarial as you seem to think it is.

    They've a natural inclination to consensus and liberal and social democracy than their neighbours to the south.

    The idea that "now is not the time" is an old imperial and unionist trope to ensure that the wishes of the people are ignored with impunity.

    Ireland's experience at the hands of this attitude should make you wary of such antics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Independence is a political experiment. On this reasoning no country would ever seek independnce from a larger union.

    But the reality is that Europe is largely made up of countries that left larger unions to be come independent. So clearly this consideration is not something which, in the real world, systematically prevents countries from seeking and achieving independence.

    For the record, I think the notion that a post-independence realignment of the party system in Scotland will lead to a flight of capital is just silly. Political party realignments are a common occurrence; off the top of my head I can't think of any that led to a crisis of investor confidence and a flight of capital.

    Political realignment and renewal is the norm in almost all European countries.

    Ireland and Britain are the odd men out with such long existing behemoths where it's difficult for alternatives to break through.

    En marche!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    First Up wrote: »
    They all did so when global trade and capital movement was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

    Every business (local or foreign owned) in Scotland will be inundated with offers to move south if their business depends on England, or to an EU country (including Ireland) if they have wider ambition. Any uncertainty in Scotland will add to that.

    You're starting to reach Helen Lovejoy-esque levels of concern for capital flight from an independent Scotland. Honestly, do you really think that businesses will just shut up shop on the success of a Yes vote?

    Maybe Tunnocks might?

    You've been pushing the same capital flight 'argument' for pages now. We get it, no one's allowed to aspire to leave the UK. It's too late now. Everything must stay as it is forevermore.


Advertisement