Scottish independence

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

It's absurd to say that "If Scotland leaves the UK, it will be to join the EU. No other reason makes sense." Scotland can have lots of reasons for leaving the UK that make sense. Joining the EU doesn't even have to be one of them.

Fair enough; Scotland has a cultural identity, some social differences and other things that make it different to England. But it already has its own parliament and enough autonomy to allow it make a lot of it's own decisions.

But being dragged out of the EU (and as a consequence into even closer ties with England) is what has revived the independence issue and would very likely see it pass next time.

And the EU's door will be open, but Scotland would still have to meet the entry requirements - including the Euro.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course. But planning to join the EU is not the same as aspiring to independence in order to join the EU. The Scots might reasonably aspire to independence in order to be able to make their own decision about that, and about lots of other things, and also in order not to be beholdend to decisions made by an increasingly dysfunctional UK.

It's absurd to say that "If Scotland leaves the UK, it will be to join the EU. No other reason makes sense." Scotland can have lots of reasons for leaving the UK that make sense. Joining the EU doesn't even have to be one of them.

If Brexit didn't exist, how much support would there be for Scottish independence today?

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Brexit didn't exist, how much support would there be for Scottish independence today?

Well, a major plank in the NO vote in the Indyref was that the new independent Scotland would be ejected from the EU. In the /Brexit referendum, Scotland voted strongly for EU membership, which would suggest the EU membership was a decisive factor in the Indyref.

Much of the Indyref was fought on dubious grounds, but not as much as the Brexit votes where facts and experts were discounted by the LEAVE campaign.

The YES campaign tried to isolate the UK pound from the argument, and that the Queen of England would remain as Queen of Scotland. Whether either were actually important is a moot point, but could become an issue after independence.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, a major plank in the NO vote in the Indyref was that the new independent Scotland would be ejected from the EU. In the /Brexit referendum, Scotland voted strongly for EU membership, which would suggest the EU membership was a decisive factor in the Indyref.

Much of the Indyref was fought on dubious grounds, but not as much as the Brexit votes where facts and experts were discounted by the LEAVE campaign.

The YES campaign tried to isolate the UK pound from the argument, and that the Queen of England would remain as Queen of Scotland. Whether either were actually important is a moot point, but could become an issue after independence.

I think that independence arguments seem to have become much clearer since 2016. Economically, pandemic aside, Scotland will take a serious cold shower if it becomes independent. But that's going to happen anyway with Brexit. Plus there isn't the same toxic form of nationalism that pervades swathes of English society.

I remember reading an article some years ago in The Economist which argued, quite persuasively, that Scottish people's sense of identity was built around not being English. Many Scots are now appalled at what is happening in the HoC in recent years and how this Tory government has swung even further right and is disregarding Scotland's voice. The pandemic has emphasised this.

So I think that there are elements of wanting to be seen as an independent nation, to be part of the EU project and to not want to be part of a country that is now being run by elitist right wing English populists. Brexit has dominated British English politics for five years now. In doing so, it has created and encapsulated many of the reasons why Scotland may no longer want to be part of the UK today. That's why I think Brexit is the defining factor in the increase in support for Scottish independence.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that independence arguments seem to have become much clearer since 2016. Economically, pandemic aside, Scotland will take a serious cold shower if it becomes independent. But that's going to happen anyway with Brexit. Plus there isn't the same toxic form of nationalism that pervades swathes of English society.

I remember reading an article some years ago in The Economist which argued, quite persuasively, that Scottish people's sense of identity was built around not being English. Many Scots are now appalled at what is happening in the HoC in recent years and how this Tory government has swung even further right and is disregarding Scotland's voice. The pandemic has emphasised this.

So I think that there are elements of wanting to be seen as an independent nation, to be part of the EU project and to not want to be part of a country that is now being run by elitist right wing English populists. Brexit has dominated British English politics for five years now. In doing so, it has created and encapsulated many of the reasons why Scotland may no longer want to be part of the UK today. That's why I think Brexit is the defining factor in the increase in support for Scottish independence.

I agree with this except the bit about Scotland only see themselves as 'not English'. They have a as great a sense of their Sottishness as we have of our Irishness. They have a defenite realisation that they have a culture and tradition that is theirs and it is a genuine expression of the nationality.

Unfortunately, there has been a significant number of English immigrants that see Scotland as English British, and that Scottish nationalism is a tiny minority of weirdos.

They want independence for themselves to be themselves, not to be not-something-else. If it takes them into the EU, they want to be themselves that, not some foreign parliament in London.

First Up

A poll in the Glasgow Herald this week put support for independence at 54%. I had expected it to be higher so its obviously a very complex issue.

In my experience (I lived there for a bit) Scots are comfortable with their own identity but are also comfortable being British. Some will be disgusted at being dragged out of the EU but others might seek sanctuary in a "fortress Britain". Many younger Scots will be in the former camp; older Scots (and retired English living there) may be in the latter.

It is for the UK to sort for itself. The EU will be careful not to interfere and will play it carefully and by the book.

Interesting times.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I've moved the Scottish independence posts to the relevant thread.

briany

First Up wrote: »

Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

:pac:

They say people change when the pain of change is outweighed by the pain of staying the same. Given that the UK looks set to crash out of the EU and become a geographically-isolated trading entity, and given that Westminster's handling of the Coronavirus leading to the highest death toll in Europe and demonstrates their utter ineptitude in handling a large crisis, just how the hell could a sane Scottish person look upon staying in the UK as sanctuary and stability? Westminster has completely lost that argument by taking their current Kamikaze approach. England appears to be going off the deep end as blinkered nationalism has the UK set to drive off an economic cliff. It's clear now that the economic and foreign policies of Scotland and England are on two separate paths and if they continue with that, the political split is only a matter of time.

First Up

briany wrote:

They say people change when the pain of change is outweighed by the pain of staying the same. Given that the UK looks set to crash out of the EU and become a geographically-isolated trading entity, and given that Westminster's handling of the Coronavirus leading to the highest death toll in Europe and demonstrates their utter ineptitude in handling a large crisis, just how the hell could a sane Scottish person look upon staying in the UK as sanctuary and stability? Westminster has completely lost that argument by taking their current Kamikaze approach. England appears to be going off the deep end as blinkered nationalism has the UK set to drive off an economic cliff. It's clear now that the economic and foreign policies of Scotland and England are on two separate paths and if they continue with that, the political split is only a matter of time.

Yes but the older people get, the less inclined they are to embrace change. Scotland does 60+% of its business with England; some people just want to stick with what they know. They will see and feel leaving the UK as a much more visible issue than leaving the EU.

Scotland voting for independence last time while within the EU would have been crazy. Much less crazy now and a few years of fortress Britain could make joining the EU as an independent nation very attractive.

But the complications and challenges shouldn't be underestimated.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

Slovenia left Yougoslavia to rejoin western europe (and the EU) as the artificial Yougoslav state was on the brink of collapse and ethnic conflict.

Czechoslovakia was an artificial construct anyway; both parts were happy to return to their historic independent roots as Eastern Europe emerged from communism.

Neither is really comparable to Ireland gaining independence in a fragmented Europe after WW1.



Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

What's this obsession with labeling different states as "artificial"?

Yugoslavia began the slow break up after Tito died and the Serbs tried to throw their weight around (obviously there's more to it) but Yugoslavia was no more "artificial" than any of the numerous border changes in Europe in the 20th century after WW1.

What makes the UK less artificial that Scotland can't have a legitimate "independence for independence sake" aspiration like some of Ireland achieved?

The UK only existed on foot of the Scottish Darrien mess really.

Even then we were a separate Kingdom with a separate parliament.

Then we "joined" in 1801 after some coercion.

As I'm sure you're aware a few things happened throughout the 19th century that made a lot of us less than enamoured with London-rule.

And part of the country left the UK in 1922.

So the UK as it stands is a pretty young State in its current composition. It's as artificial and as real as any State. Though, really continues to only exist through coercion and the dominance of one constituent country over the others.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

Yes but the older people get, the less inclined they are to embrace change. Scotland does 60+% of its business with England; some people just want to stick with what they know. They will see and feel leaving the UK as a much more visible issue than leaving the EU.

Scotland voting for independence last time while within the EU would have been crazy. Much less crazy now and a few years of fortress Britain could make joining the EU as an independent nation very attractive.

But the complications and challenges shouldn't be underestimated.

A completely different approach would be why the English Tories want to keep Scotland in the UK.

Labour backed the NO side because they held 40 of the Scottish seats, and now hold just one seat. Surely if they had backed independence, thay might have a larger representation in an independent Scotland.

The Tories hold six seats, with SNP holding 48 seats. Why bother? If Scotland was independent, then the rUK would have a permanent Tory majority, even without FPTP. Is it because they like dominating other nations? Is it because Scotland houses their nuclear bombs? Or is it because the Queen likes to holiday in Scotland? [Queen Victoria preferred the Isle of Wight].

A friendly break up might result in them remaining friends - perhaps not.

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's this obsession with labeling different states as "artificial"?

Yugoslavia began the slow break up after Tito died and the Serbs tried to throw their weight around (obviously there's more to it) but Yugoslavia was no more "artificial" than any of the numerous border changes in Europe in the 20th century after WW1.

What makes the UK less artificial that Scotland can't have a legitimate "independence for independence sake" aspiration like some of Ireland achieved?

The UK only existed on foot of the Scottish Darrien mess really.

Even then we were a separate Kingdom with a separate parliament.

Then we "joined" in 1801 after some coercion.

As I'm sure you're aware a few things happened throughout the 19th century that made a lot of us less than enamoured with London-rule.

And part of the country left the UK in 1922.

So the UK as it stands is a pretty young State in its current composition. It's as artificial and as real as any State. Though, really continues to only exist through coercion and the dominance of one constituent country over the others.

Of course Europe and most everywhere else has evolved over time with the legacy of colonialism, wars and royal marriages. But Yugoslavia was only held together by Tito's strong arm approach and contrived interdependence that collapsed when it broke up. I spend a bit of time there as they are still trying to untangle the mess in parts like BiH and Kosovo, while UN troops make sure people don't go back to burning out neighbours of different ethnicity.

Czechoslovakia wasn't as contrived but there were still differences that only emerged after communism and were big enough to bring about separation.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

sanctuary and stability of the UK

that's a good one.

Tell us what the exchange rate between Sterling and the dollar or Euro will be ?
Or even tell us how certain you are that there won't be a 5-10% swing by then.

No one knows how the import/export regime or tariffs will be on the first of January.

No one knows how much paperwork will be needed to trade with companies in NI in Jan or what the costs will be given no one knows how long it will take the UK govt to pay for any tariffs, or if there will be tariffs or what the UK govt will pay for.

No one knows how far the Scottish govt will have to diverge from England if there is a second wave of Covid-19.

First Up

Correct. Nobody knows what will happen. Brexit is monumentally stupid and the UK is in for a very rough ride.

But it's all Scotland has known for a few hundred years so leaving it affects everything, including 60% of their trade.

If they leave the UK (and they very well might) then they will need to have a destination in mind before they go. (Something the UK forgot to do when deciding to leave the EU.)

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

Correct. Nobody knows what will happen. Brexit is monumentally stupid and the UK is in for a very rough ride.

But it's all Scotland has known for a few hundred years so leaving it affects everything, including 60% of their trade.

If they leave the UK (and they very well might) then they will need to have a destination in mind before they go. (Something the UK forgot to do when deciding to leave the EU.)

If they peg to Sterling then there's very little extra financial uncertainty for business and individuals.

The big question is what % of the UK dept would the take on. I can't see Scotland being a nuclear power so there's one huge expenditure they won't have to keep paying.

Leasing bases is a different question, refer to the Irish treaty ports or to the ship USS Proteus and other tenders servicing US subs in Holy Loch.

Charles Babbage

First Up wrote: »

Correct. Nobody knows what will happen. Brexit is monumentally stupid and the UK is in for a very rough ride.

But it's all Scotland has known for a few hundred years so leaving it affects everything, including 60% of their trade.

If they leave the UK (and they very well might) then they will need to have a destination in mind before they go. (Something the UK forgot to do when deciding to leave the EU.)

Well this satirical German tv show suggested that they swap places with Switzerland (bung it into Google or Microsoft Translate if you do not sprechen Deutsch.)
https://www.der-postillon.com/2016/06/schottland-schweiz.html

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If they peg to Sterling then there's very little extra financial uncertainty for business and individuals.

There may be little financial uncertainty, but considerable disruption. If Scotland joints the EU or the EEA while rump UK remains outside the EU and (let's suppose) doesn't have a zero-tariff zero-quota trade deal with the EU, then Scottish-UK trade will be hit by tariffs or quotas or both. That will be a considerably bigger problem than having a different currency would be.

Mind you, the choice is not between tariffs/quotas on the one hand, and no tariffs/quotas on the other. If Scotland stays in the UK, then the 40% of its trade which is not done with England/Wales/NI will be hit by the tariffs/quotas, and the other detriments, that result from Brexit. Because of decisions that the UK has made, the status quo is not on offer to Scotland. And while the initial economic shock of independence is greater that the economic shock of staying in the UK, the Scots may think it worth bearing the greater shock in order to escape the position where they continue to be vulnerable to econmic damage that the UK decides to inflict.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The big question is what % of the UK dept would the take on.

The Scottish government published some thoughts on this in connection with the IndyRef in 2014. Possibilities include:

- UK public debt could be divided in proportion to population.

- UK public debt could be divided in proportion to historical balance of public spending and taxation in Scotland versus the balance in the rest of the UK. This would result in a lower debt share for Scotland than simply dividing by population (or would have done in 2014, but I doubt that the picture has changed since).

Either approach, in 2014, would have resulting in independent Scotland having a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the UK as a whole then had.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I can't see Scotland being a nuclear power so there's one huge expenditure they won't have to keep paying.

Again, based on what was planned in 2014, independent Scotland would not
be a nuclear power and would not host the nuclear capacity of rumpUK (or other countries).

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Leasing bases is a different question, refer to the Irish treaty ports or to the ship USS Proteus and other tenders servicing US subs in Holy Loch.

Independent Scotland was to participate in NATO and, other than the ban on nuclear weapons, would be open to hosting the troops of NATO allies (including rumpUK).

murphaph

I wonder what the transition phase between leaving the UK and joining the EU or at least EFTA would look like for Scotland. I also assume they'd peg their currency to Sterling initially but would London be generous or mean spirited in their approach to the transition phase?

The EU IMO has been as generous as anyone could expect with the UK being treated as a member state as far as businesses are concerned and the UK for the most part setting the deadlines itself. Would London do the same for Edinburgh or would they throw Scotland straight to the WTO sharks?

Is there a fast path at least into the EFTA lifeboat for Scotland in this case?

Personally I would be in favour of developing strong links to Scotland and doing everything we can in Ireland to help them get their place back in the EU. This would come at some immediate cost to Ireland economically as Scotland would be a direct competitor and they could fairly easily replicate our model but you have to think bigger picture.

I'd hope some day to see the rUK rejoin with a different attitude than the last time. I think it will happen but it'll take decades, wasted decades.

Peregrinus

You have to think that actually delivering independence for Scotland would be at least a medium-term project, and the UK government in office during that process would almost certainly not be the present one. So you can speculate pretty freely about how the process would be approached from the Westminster end, but all speculations are equally unrealistic.

My unrealistic speculation; if it gets to the point where Scotland is going to become independent, there is no advantage to rumpUK in making that process more bloody than it needs to be, and considerable disadvantage. So while a Westminster government might play quite hard ball on issues that directly affect rUK's interests, like the division of the national debt, they are less likely to try and impede the Scots simply for the sake of it, e.g. by putting obstacles in the way of the Scots pegging their currency to sterling, if that is what the Scots initially decide to do.

murphaph

Yeah honestly the currency thing is a red herring. The Scots have practically no say in monetary policy as it is. The rUK can't stop them pegging to Sterling if they choose to do so.

The bigger issues are all the same ones we are all so familiar with thanks to Brexit.

Peregrinus

Any country is free to peg its currency to sterling and in the past many did (including Ireland). But very few do nowadays, and those that do are mostly tiny British dependencies, e.g. the Falkland Islands. It's conceivable that a newly-independent Scotland might, but if so I think this would be only a transitional measure, pending the launch of a freely-floating Scottish pound or (more likely) the adoption of the euro.

murphaph

I think the very same. They'd peg to sterling but once inside EFTA or the EU proper they'd begin to diversify their exports and look to join the Euro in time. You could have an interesting timeline something like:

Scotland leaves UK, retains pound.
NI leaves UK for UI, immediately switches to Euro.
Scotland joins EFTA/EU then switches to Euro at some later date.

I genuinely don't see NI surviving in the UK if Scotland leaves. Most of the unionist cultural ties are with Scotland, not England.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

I think the very same. They'd peg to sterling but once inside EFTA or the EU proper they'd begin to diversify their exports and look to join the Euro in time. You could have an interesting timeline something like:

Scotland leaves UK, retains pound.
NI leaves UK for UI, immediately switches to Euro.
Scotland joins EFTA/EU then switches to Euro at some later date.

I genuinely don't see NI surviving in the UK if Scotland leaves. Most of the unionist cultural ties are with Scotland, not England.

The markets won't give Scotland the luxury of a leisurely switch from sterling to the Euro. If the (are allowed) leave the UK, they will need to do it quickly, decisively and fully. They are already hemorrhaging business and FDI (to Ireland among others) because of the uncertainty. If they leave the UK, the EU is their only option, so they better be quick about it. The SNP know it and so does the business world.

How they untangle from the UK is their own business.

briany

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder what the transition phase between leaving the UK and joining the EU or at least EFTA would look like for Scotland. I also assume they'd peg their currency to Sterling initially but would London be generous or mean spirited in their approach to the transition phase?

Well, since Westminster at present espouses that it is the right of all nations to assert their sovereignty to its fullest extent, I expect they will treat Scotland with the utmost respect and fairness if Scotland makes the choice to do same.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

Well, since Westminster at present espouses that it is the right of all nations to assert their sovereignty to its fullest extent, I expect they will treat Scotland with the utmost respect and fairness if Scotland makes the choice to do same.

Well, the current Tory government is awash with highly principled people whose only selfless goal is to engage harmoniously withn all other nations for the betterment of their people and humanity in general. So it's all good.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, the current Tory government is awash with highly principled people whose only selfless goal is to engage harmoniously within all other nations for the betterment of their people and humanity in general. So it's all good.

Unless you happen to be the Chagos Islands. Then it is a different story.

They have a very bad history when it comes to principles, and even worse when measured in selflessness.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have to think that actually delivering independence for Scotland would be at least a medium-term project, and the UK government in office during that process would almost certainly not be the present one. So you can speculate pretty freely about how the process would be approached from the Westminster end, but all speculations are equally unrealistic.

My unrealistic speculation; if it gets to the point where Scotland is going to become independent, there is no advantage to rumpUK in making that process more bloody than it needs to be, and considerable disadvantage. So while a Westminster government might play quite hard ball on issues that directly affect rUK's interests, like the division of the national debt, they are less likely to try and impede the Scots simply for the sake of it, e.g. by putting obstacles in the way of the Scots pegging their currency to sterling, if that is what the Scots initially decide to do.

This is correct, but Britain's history has shown that it (UK Officialdom) will never let go easily.

Almost in all cases that they have been sent packing it has been after an insurrection or civil war. Sure, they even see Civil War within their own jurisdiction as justifiable in order to hold onto colonial appendages.

To think that they well be pragmatic in this scenario is fanciful. This will be the ultimate slap in the face to Westminster primacy.

Without Scotland there is no longer a Britain for the British identity to latch onto. That will be too much for some to let go quietly.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This is correct, but Britain's history has shown that it (UK Officialdom) will never let go easily.

Almost in all cases that they have been sent packing it has been after an insurrection or civil war. Sure, they even see Civil War within their own jurisdiction as justifiable in order to hold onto colonial appendages.

To think that they well be pragmatic in this scenario is fanciful. This will be the ultimate slap in the face to Westminster primacy.

Without Scotland there is no longer a Britain for the British identity to latch onto. That will be too much for some to let go quietly.

But the two main parties have already lost Scotland. The Tories have six seats, up from one, but down from 19. The Labour Party currently have just one seat, down from 40 seats before Indyref 1.

Neither have a single seat in NI.

So what is in it for them? Best be shot of the place, but be careful to take the nuclear bombs with them.

.

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the two main parties have already lost Scotland. The Tories have six seats, up from one, but down from 19. The Labour Party currently have just one seat, down from 40 seats before Indyref 1.

Neither have a single seat in NI.

So what is in it for them? Best be shot of the place, but be careful to take the nuclear bombs with them.

.

You could have said that about Ireland from any point from 1801 to today and yet...

Scotland is on a whole other plane. There's no way regardless of the perceived lack of support that the big-two have there that that would make it easier to be shot of the place.

Looking at Holyrood would be a better place to look at for actual support of the unionist parties, ie. anyone but the SNP and Greens.


The loss of Scotland would be a psychological hammer-blow.

That they have no support in a jurisdiction has never stopped the British establishment hanging on too long before. No reason to think that they would change tack.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You could have said that about Ireland from any point from 1801 to today and yet...

Scotland is on a whole other plane. There's no way regardless of the perceived lack of support that the big-two have there that that would make it easier to be shot of the place.

Looking at Holyrood would be a better place to look at for actual support of the unionist parties, ie. anyone but the SNP and Greens.


The loss of Scotland would be a psychological hammer-blow.

That they have no support in a jurisdiction has never stopped the British establishment hanging on too long before. No reason to think that they would change tack.

The “big two” have 54 of the 129 seats at the Scottish parliament. I’d hardly call that a lack of support.

feargale

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unless you happen to be the Chagos Islands. Then it is a different story.

They have a very bad history when it comes to principles, and even worse when measured in selflessness.

You can include the USA where the Chagos Islands aka Diego Garcia is concerned. That is a shameful story, and I get the impression that alot of cyber sites are not keen to be giving it exposure.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You could have said that about Ireland from any point from 1801 to today and yet...

Scotland is on a whole other plane. There's no way regardless of the perceived lack of support that the big-two have there that that would make it easier to be shot of the place.

Looking at Holyrood would be a better place to look at for actual support of the unionist parties, ie. anyone but the SNP and Greens.

---

The loss of Scotland would be a psychological hammer-blow.

That they have no support in a jurisdiction has never stopped the British establishment hanging on too long before. No reason to think that they would change tack.

Aegir wrote: »

The “big two” have 54 of the 129 seats at the Scottish parliament. I’d hardly call that a lack of support.

It's almost like I said that? Wow!

The second passage was a general statement on the British establishment tendency to stick around like a bad smell.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

The “big two” have 54 of the 129 seats at the Scottish parliament. I’d hardly call that a lack of support.

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

And the SNP would have half the seats they have now.

What’s your point?

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

And the SNP would have half the seats they have now.

What’s your point?

That the UK parliament elects on FPTP which results in huge majorities and the Scottish parliament elects on the AM system which result in hung parliaments. One is fairer than the other and if the UK wanted fairness, they would ditch FPTP. The only reason the 'big two' have 54 out of 129 in the Scottish parliament is due to the non-use of FPTP

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

Aegir wrote: »

And the SNP would have half the seats they have now.

What’s your point?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That the UK parliament elects on FPTP which results in huge majorities and the Scottish parliament elects on the AM system which result in hung parliaments. One is fairer than the other and if the UK wanted fairness, they would ditch FPTP. The only reason the 'big two' have 54 out of 129 in the Scottish parliament is due to the non-use of FPTP

I thought your point was pretty clear.

A Dub in Glasgo

So did I

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That the UK parliament elects on FPTP which results in huge majorities and the Scottish parliament elects on the AM system which result in hung parliaments. One is fairer than the other and if the UK wanted fairness, they would ditch FPTP. The only reason the 'big two' have 54 out of 129 in the Scottish parliament is due to the non-use of FPTP

That wasn’t your point at all, you were simply looking to have a dig at the Conservative party, for some reason.

If you went for the AM approach to the UK parliament, then the SNP would still have less seats than they have now.

The only reason Boris has a sizable majority is because there was nothing in the way of credible opposition at the last election. Now Labour has a decent leader, that may well change in both Westminster and Holyrood.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

That wasn’t your point at all, you were simply looking to have a dig at the Conservative party, for some reason.

If you went for the AM approach to the UK parliament, then the SNP would still have less seats than they have now.

The only reason Boris has a sizable majority is because there was nothing in the way of credible opposition at the last election. Now Labour has a decent leader, that may well change in both Westminster and Holyrood.

And you're not looking to have a dig at the SNP?

You're the first person to decry the outsized SNP representation because of FPTP and yet when the tables are turned...

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

That's the original post.

It's not very long.

A fair interpretation of the original post wrote:

ADIG thinks that it would be a positive thing for the AM system to be in place for Westminster elections.

This would ensure that there is a fairer distribution of seats, and majorities such as the one the current government have, could only really be achieved through consensus and coalition.

ADIG feels that this would be a good thing overall for the British Parliament.

---

Yeah, he really went for the jugular there.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And you're not looking to have a dig at the SNP?

You're the first person to decry the outsized SNP representation because of FPTP and yet when the tables are turned...




That's the original post.

It's not very long.



---

Yeah, he really went for the jugular there.

What are you on about? Tat wasn’t an original post, it was a response to my post. I simply pointed out some truths without resorting to petty name calling.

You claimed the big four have “lost Scotland” whereas in actual fact, they only have a slightly lower share of the Westminster vote than the SNP, who obtained 80% of the seats in Scotland on 44% of the vote. That isn’t a dig, that’s the facts.

Sorry if that doesn’t fit the narrative, but FPTP really really worked in their favour at the last election.

Would a hybrid or even PR system make a difference, yes, but it would adversely affect both the conservatives and the SNP.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

The only reason Boris has a sizable majority is because there was nothing in the way of credible opposition at the last election. Now Labour has a decent leader, that may well change in both Westminster and Holyrood.

The only reason Boris has a sizeable majority now is because of FPTP; if the UK used a proportional electoral system he wouldn't have a majority at all, never mind a sizeable one.

I agree with you that the Labour offering was appalling. But if we're honest the Tory offering was equally appalling. Clearly, having an appalling offering is no bar to securing a thumping majority under FPTP. One of the main drawbacks of FPTP, really, is that is hugely narrows the options realistically available, usually down to just two, and so can leave the voter in a situation where the only alternative to a truly awful offering is another truly awful offering.

Basically, in a Westminster election, voters can be asked the equivalent of "would you rather be flogged with nettles, or smeared with honey and thrown into an ants' nest?" Trying to read into their answer opinions about a nuanced question such as Scottish independence is basically a waste of time.

And yet Westminster election results are relevant to the Indy question, but in a completely different way. If we ask ourselves not "what do the Scots think about independence?" but "what does Westminster think about Scottish independence?", then Westminster cares about the loss of Scottish seats. The Tories have a few Scottish seats to lose; Labour have virtually none, but they do face the loss of the not-negligible possibility of SNP support for a Labour government. And therefore on electoral considerations Labour are more threatened by Scottish independence than the Tories are.

murphaph

Exactly. FPTP usually forces the voter to vote tactically to keep out who they really don't want. If we'd had it in Ireland then FF would have won every election since SF took up their seats in the Dáil as people would have voted for them to keep SF out.

You can't vote for the party you actually want in in most constituencies. It's a wretched system.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

If you went for the AM approach to the UK parliament, then the SNP would still have less seats than they have now.

of course

The only reason Boris has a sizable majority is because there was nothing in the way of credible opposition at the last election. Now Labour has a decent leader, that may well change in both Westminster and Holyrood.

You are totally missing the point, the only reason Johnson has a sizeable majority is because of FPTP

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

of course



You are totally missing the point, the only reason Johnson has a sizeable majority is because of FPTP

Why exactly are you shifting goalposts. FPTP was not being discussed and was irrelevant to the thread. You had a little rant about Boris (choosing to use a childish name) and have now decided to move the goal posts.

A Dub in Glasgo

You were the one stating

The “big two” have 54 of the 129 seats at the Scottish parliament. I’d hardly call that a lack of support

The reason for that is due to the non-use of FPTP. If the Scot Parl used FPTP then the 'big two' would have very little support in the parliament and you would not be able to make the statement above

I said it is a pity that the UK parl does not use a similar system as Johnson would not have a huge majority

A Dub in Glasgo

The Sunday Times has a poll today

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1279708024370798595

Mr.Nice Guy

Significant comment from John Curtice, one of the most knowledgeable pollsters in the UK:

https://twitter.com/kacnutt/status/1279736796218380288

Saw this quote in the Sunday Times article too:

"There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable."

Certainly looks like the momentum is with independence now. The next twelve months will be huge. The danger for the Tories is the more they deny a referendum, the more the numbers may go up. At some point they have to confront the issue head on.

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Sunday Times has a poll today

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1279708024370798595

The difference in the handling of the virus no doubt playing a factor but with London still being so intransigent in saying no to an independence referendum I think being the major factor.

pixelburp

One potentially intriguing part of that poll is it reminds how a post independence Scotland could effectively be a one party state. It's the height of speculation but I'd wonder what would become of Hollyroods structure in the dissolution of the main 3 "UK" parties; the union would be history so politicians would need to adjust their outlook accordingly. Indeed would there be scope for splinter SNP? Division would surely announce itself in light of deciding what KIND of independent Scotland was governed.

Peregrinus

pixelburp wrote: »

One potentially intriguing part of that poll is it reminds how a post independence Scotland could effectively be a one party state. It's the height of speculation but I'd wonder what would become of Hollyroods structure in the dissolution of the main 3 "UK" parties; the union would be history so politicians would need to adjust their outlook accordingly. Indeed would there be scope for splinter SNP? Division would surely announce itself in light of deciding what KIND of independent Scotland was governed.

That's exactly the issue that we faced here a hundred years ago. It was commonly expected that an independent Irish republic would be electorally dominated by Sinn Fein. The Civil War, of course, meant that didn't happen, but that wan't foreseen.

This was one of the reasons for adopting the single transferrable vote, which greatly reduces the power of the party effectively to nomninate the members of parliament that it wants, as happens in the UK. With STV the party presents a slate of candidates, and party supporters can influence the party in ways that is not possible in the UK by, e.g., giving higher preferences to the more left-wing or right-wing candidates on the panel. This also encourages candidates from the same party to compete with one another by appeal to the voters, rather than by appealing to the party bosses.

Tehre was also a proposal that Ministers should be accountable to specialist Dail Committees, one for each Department. Decades later we did introduce such a system, but a very watered-down version of the fairly robust system that was proposed at the time.

In Scotland, I think you'd see a number of things happening following independence, but one is considerable pressure on the unity of the Scots Nationalists. At the moment they are cemented together by their Great Project, but once that is acheived they have to find a new course to steer, and I think there will be tensions between left and right wings, rural and urban interests, etc, etc. Voters will also have a wider choice; at the moment you can't vote for, e.g., a right-of-centre party without also voting in support of the union. Once that link is broken space will open up for a party in the European Christian Democratic tradition, and unless they're very stupid the Scottish Tories will try to reinvent themselves as that party. If they don't,someone else certainly will. Similar opportunities are open to the Scottish Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrats.