Scottish independence

A Dub in Glasgo

Sarwar fails to tell his supporters that there is no Labour bounce in Scotland from SNP voters, it is almost entirely Tory voters moving to Labour

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119727512#Comment_119727512

It is always the same when someone has to defend the indefensible. Say everyone is the same. Labour and SNP have not advocated for cutting public spending, neither leader has advocated for cutting tax for the wealthy.

People complain about funding for an independent Scotland but now we have the BoE scrambling to patch up the UK economy after the Conservatives tanked it.

Yes SNP would likely split if Scotland became independent. That is only natural and you want an opposition party in a healthy democracy. Once their most important issue to them is sorted they should have their own opinions on other issues and discuss in a way similar to other countries.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119737914#Comment_119737914

Labour have brought Britain to economic ruin before when they've been in power.

Danzy

Labour are the nasty wing of Unionists in Scotland. Hard line, sectarian, angry.

The Scottish Tories by comparison are people that can be talked with. Even if not agreed with.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119738066#Comment_119738066

No, they didn't. They just continued Thatcherite neoliberalism that would have done the same under the Tories.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119738152#Comment_119738152

That is still on Labour imo. Though I would say none have managed it within 3 weeks of taking office and had such an obviously attributable decision causing this.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119738181#Comment_119738181

I'd say it's on the political elites of this country as a whole. Labour at least tried to manage neoliberalism and pass on some of the proceeds to the working class. Not that they appreciated it.

A Dub in Glasgo

The SNP issued their economic case for independence yesterday and it is a bit underwhelming

8 years since the referendum defeat, they still propose sterlingisation as the currency answer. They discuss customs borders as well which immediately gives the 'independence will mean border checks' impetus to unionists and the media.

https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1582040689277210624

Water John

Here's one reason for Tories to support Scottish independence:

'A poll published yesterday suggested the Conservatives would lose out to the Scottish National Party (SNP) as the official opposition in the House of Commons if a general election was held.

The poll, by Redfield and Wilton Strategies, put Labour at a 36-point lead, the largest for any party since October 1997.'

Mr.Nice Guy

Fair to say the return of Boris Johnson would be the best outcome for the Scottish independence campaign?

A Dub in Glasgo

It does not matter who is PM if you are not serious about independence

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119774511#Comment_119774511

It does when it comes to convincing moderate voters that independence is the way forward. Much harder to do when Starmer wins IMO.

pixelburp

There's a reasonable argument that it doesn't matter who the PM, when 2022 has shown just how precarious and chaotic Westminister's institutions can be; beholden to tradition and an increasingly deference to populism. Undecided voters might look to Holyrood for full responsibility if it means more structure, stability and control. It's increasingly evident reform is needed down South, with no real indication it's gonna happen.

Christy42

2022 is a big argument for independence no matter who is pm. However a pm who has vocally stated that they don't see this as a union and someone from Scotland should not be able to rise to the highest office in the land is a nice cherry on top.

Ramasun

I think Scottish Independence is a done deal if they get another referendum in the next two or three years.

The issues of Stability, Economy and Monarchy have all become more favourable for independence.

serfboard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119785401#Comment_119785401

The more likely an independence referendum is to succeed, the less likely they are to get one.

The Tories will not give them another one. The most that they could hope for would be a Labour government, needing seats for a majority, to have one as part of a deal. If the economic situation does not improve greatly in the next two years, Labour won't need their support.

Ramasun

I think the illegal referenda in occupied Ukraine make it impossible for the UK to deny Scotland the right to hold an independence referendum if they want.

To condemn the Russians you have to show there is a legal and democratic alternative.

Mr.Nice Guy

If Sunak ushers in a new era of austerity as many are predicting, then it will be vital for the SNP to put forward a credible economic alternative. They got these policies wrong in 2014, and the latest proposals on keeping the pound don't seem to be winning anyone over. If the newest polls on independence don't show movement to yes, I would imagine it's due to concern over the economy.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787912#Comment_119787912

But it's the other way around.

The only legal referendum for Scottish independence can come from Westminster, or possibly the courts as we will find out.

So if anyone is having an illegal referendum it will be the SNP.

And the Scotts had their legal referendum 8 years ago, a very short time in the context of theses things.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789918#Comment_119789918

8 years is very short but the years havent exactly been light with change and societal issues, specifically brexit and absolute tory mismanagement to name but 2. And considering one of the main points the English establishment campaigned for them to reamin was EU membership and many then voted remain for that reason a new Ref in such a short time would be entirely reasonable. The Irony of course that if Brexit had been remain by a similar margin to the indy ref its most ardent supporters would have been pushing for a rerun a lot sooner than 8 years, they opf course are some of the most loud opponents to another scottish indy ref.

"Sovereignty for me but not for thee"

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789918#Comment_119789918

It'd be deeply selective thinking to say it was "only" 8 years, like nothing has happened to the UK's structure and institutions in the interim.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789918#Comment_119789918

It's not a short time.

In democratic politics, seven years is generally considered long enough to be a reset of pretty well anything. Scandals that are more than seven years old have negligible traction on voting decisions today; likewise triumphs of more than seven years ago. Mandates conferred at elections more than seven years ago have expired - no democracy has parliamentary or executive terms of longer than seven years, and for good reason. Etc.

Of course people will point out that this or that referendum was supposed to settle some question "for a generation", or some such language. I think there's two answers to that:

• If this was a prediction as to the political effect the referendum would have, it was a mistaken one. A referendum can end debate on a particular matter for a prolonged period - see e.g. the UK referendum on EU membership in 1975. But it does this not by some magical force, like a Harry Potter spell, but by showing that there is in fact a substantial national consensus on the question - the 1975 referendum gave a 67% vote in favour of continued membership, and it's that result which laid the question to rest. A referendum may achieve the very opposite effect by showing that there is no settled consensus, and that in fact opinion is very closely balanced. (I'd argue that the UK's 2016 referendum on EU membership had precisely this effect.) On this view, if a politician predicts that a referendum will settle some question for a generation, that prediction may simply turn out to have been wrong.
• What if we understand the politician to be promising or decreeing that a referendum will settle a question permanently, or for a prolonged period? Well, I'd argue that such a politician is exceeding his authority. David Cameron, famously, said that the 2014 Scottish independence referendum would settle the question for a generation. But the Prime Minister has no power to make or enforce such a decision. The most he could say was that he would not promote another referendum. He could not bind the policy of another Prime Minister, of his own or another party. And he certainly couldn't bind Parliament; Parliament can legislate to conduct another referendum whenever it wishes and - the seven-year rule - what David Cameron may or may not have promised more than seven years ago will have no traction.

pizzathis

So wee jimmy cranky wants a independent Scotland and join the European Union again instead of being governed by Westminster out of the frying pan into the fire

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790007#Comment_119790007

I think you're on the wrong board, PT. Ireland is the one country that has experience both of being governed from Westminster as part of the UK and of being a member state of the EU in its own right. The difference is dramatic, and this board is full of people who know that.

Fr Tod Umptious

I agree that in that 8 years a lot has changed, and fully agree that the SNP are correct to push the narrative that the material change that was Brexit should be a reason for another referendum.

But it's still a relatively short period and in the polls in that time it's not as if independence has been surging, yes it's been on top, but has it ever gone beyond 60% ?

But comparing Westminsters refusal to allow another referendum to illegal Russian votes in Ukraine is just way off the mark.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790031#Comment_119790031

I agree. Whatever the justification for the Tory refusal to allow a referendum, it doesn't become any more unjustifiable because of the fake referendums conducted by Russia in parts of Ukraine.

But on a wider level there is a looser connection. Russia is refusing to recognise the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination. Obviously, what they are doing as a result of that - the invasion of Ukraine - has no parallel in the Scottish case. But, essentially, Westminster is seeking to keep the UK together and one of the tools that it claims to have, and that it seeks to use, is simply to deny that the Scots have a right to express an opinion on whether they want to stay in the UK or not.

That's not, as I say, the invasion of Ukraine, but it's also not a sustainable basis for holding the UK together, both on a practical level (that strategy failed to keep the UK together in 1922; why would it work now?) and on a principled level (all nations have a right to self-determination; on what basis can the UK deny that the Scots do?).

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789613#Comment_119789613

From what I saw they will keep sterling for a yet to be defined length of time, so things like interest rates will be in the hands of the BOE rather than anything in Scotland.

Then at some point they will have their own currency.

But at the same time they plan to be in the EU.

Now I'm no expert but I thought a aspect of joining the EU was also adopting the Euro, it may not be a hard and fast requirement but if Scotland want to join the EU with their own currency doesn't help their position.

pizzathis

The mighty European Union all of sudden are so United because of a certain person . There all looking out for number one as usual

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790146#Comment_119790146

The relevant requirement is actually "adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union". There's a great gap, if you want it, between that and adopting the euro; at most it requires a country to join the euro when the euro convergence criteria are met, but even this is flexible. Sweden joined the EU in 1995, for example, when this was already the requirement (it dates from 1993) and it has yet to adopt the euro. Nor is it under any particular pressure to do so. But it does pursue an interest rate policy of effectively mirroring ECB interest rates; this tends to stabilise the SEK:EUR exchange rate.

So, flexibility is available. If they were to join the EU while still conducting the bulk of their international trade with rump-UK, they might wish to pursue an exchange-rate policy which sought to stabilise a Scottish pound exchange rate with both the euro and sterling; the EU would be understanding of that.

Hermy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790216#Comment_119790216

The EU united in a common cause - what is the world coming to!