Peregrinus wrote: » Thney'll not necessarily fracture as an organisation, but their broad support will fracture. Once people are no longer united in support for the SNP by the shared goal of attaining independence, they'll start to express competing views as to how Scotland should make use of that independence. You'll likely see some people preferring a Green programme for government, some preferring a socialist programme, some a centrist programme, and so on. Without the campaign for independence to bind them together, the SNP will not be able to retain the votes of all these competing groups. Possibly the SNP splits into two or more competing groups, or possibly it simply bleeds votes to resurgent Green, Labour, centrist, etc political movements. Either way, the SNP ceases to dominate Scottish electoral politics in the way that it does now, and a conventional European-style multiparty system emerges, as it tends to do in all democracies with proportional representation.
forgottenhills wrote: » That will likely be the long term way it will pan out but are we talking 10 or 20 years down the line? . . .
Peregrinus wrote: » We're talking quite quickly, once Scottish independence has been acheived, which of course could be any number of years away. What gives the SNP its dominant position is that people who may disagree about other things agree on the priority of attaining Scottish independence, and support the SNP in order to bring this about. Once it has been brought about, they no longer have the overriding incentive to bury their disagreements on other issues, and multi=party politics should assert itself pretty rapidly.
forgottenhills wrote: » The Shetlands and indeed Orkney are not overly enthusiastic about joining an independent Scotland and are debating other options offering a greater degree of self-determination for them such as becoming a Crown dependency. Why don't you look up the Scottish press and other online sources and inform yourself about this debate? I thought you would be all for the rights to self-determination for small island nations?
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » You should expand your sources and not rely on the unionist presshttps://www.thenational.scot/news/18711945.fact-check-shetland-islands-really-want-break-away-scotland/
forgottenhills wrote: » Have you ever heard of the the Faeroes, an obvious model in the area for a degree of self-autonomy that suits them from a larger country? Perhaps the Shetlands would like the same?
forgottenhills wrote: » The problem is that achieving Scottish independence i.e persuading the majority to vote yes in an actual binding vote (not a poll) will require the SNP to have concrete plans already in place about currency, achieving accession to the EU and trade/border relations with England, Wales & NI. They did not have concrete plans in place the last time around, they only had mere aspirations on close examination, and there will be an even greater scrutiny by the electorate next time around due to the experience of another big project with no concrete plans (Brexit). So the SNP have to somehow carry out negotiations with several key stakeholders to get sign off on key proposals on currency, accession and borders before the date of a referendum. And by the way the main UK parties won't be in any rush to let that referendum go ahead any time soon. So at least 10-20 years before a successful ref can be called. If the SNP call it without these foundations being in place they could easily lose it again imo.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » Potatoes once featured prominently in arguments for Irish independence, and it seems that could also soon be the case for Scotland in 2021.https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1342057008405630976 The next few weeks are going to be fascinating when observing the fallout of Brexit talks in Scotland. There will either be a lot of anger as the ramifications of Brexit hit home, or else a weary public will shrug it off as Covid-19 takes most of the focus. I suspect initially it might be the latter effect, although as elections near I could see that changing. It's a tricky balance for Sturgeon because she has to be seen to push for independence by those who are increasingly anxious to get out of the UK, yet as the virus escalates she has to show the public that this is her top priority. If she can get the balanace right, and I think she's done well on it so far, she should get a good result in the election in May.
pixelburp wrote: » At this stage the word best used towards a second referendum feels to be "inexorable", and I'd leave it to others if they feel a "Yes" vote seems equally so. 2/3s of Scots rejected a path they're now forced into, and one which will overtly damage their economy. I do genuinely try to remain sober and objective towards the subject of independence, acknowledging that I personally support Scottish self determination, but at this juncture it simply feels like a when, not an if.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Many a slip between cup and lip. The Tories are nothing if not sly and slippery. They will use evey trick in the book to get what they want and you can't rule out them finding a way to derail Scottish independance.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » They ultimately need to approve it as would a Labour government who I can't see winning a decent majority without Scottish votes. As time goes on, I can only see the support for independence growing as a result.
pixelburp wrote: » Deny a 2nd referendum and you'd have to imagine that'll simply play into the hands of those chasing independence; the combo of Tories and Boris Johnson have been a gift to Scots angling to breakaway and almost feels like each time Johnston opens his mouth on the subject of Scotland, support for independence creeps up a point. If he then presides over a denial of a indy rerun, I can't see that going well. Better to give it to them, and spend the time and money on Better Together Mk 2 than resist and make the result inevitable. Though what angle they'll possibly use this time, given Brexit and all its facets of chaos, is beyond me. Only thing I can think of is to genuinely give the Scots that Devo Max bullshít once promised -, though the IM bill didn't give credence Westminster cares that much for Hollyrood that they'd then give it more powers.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Oh, absolutely but today's Tories seem incapable of thinking even a week or two ahead. That'll be future Boris' problem or whoever succeeds him. For now though, it'll cellotape the union together and that'll do him.
Markcheese wrote: » I assume that hollyrood will angle to hold a referendum with or without westminster approval , And if (as likely) it's without .. they'll play it to their advantage ... If westminster complain or even better try suppress the poll then "they're suppressing democracy" If they don't complain it's tacit approval .. which allows the SNP to claim it's a valid poll ( if having no legal standing ) ,. And the higher the turnout the more they get to claim " it's the will of the people " And the current tory brexit rhetoric all helps ,so the SNP would be daft to pass up on the opportunity..
Water John wrote: » Yes, turning a GE or Hollyrood vote into a Ref is a runner. But also lay emphasis and count the popular vote. SNP simply put one item on their election manifesto. Don't cloud it with any other issues. Nobody can then deny what people would have voted for.
Sam Russell wrote: » Fine if they win. Might backfire if they do not.
Water John wrote: » It simply would mean the majority of the pop don't want Ind. SNP or any political movement has no validity if it would shirk the test as to their raison d'tere.
Water John wrote: » The SNP would want not only the majority of seats but also the popular vote. Over 50% of the pop would want Indy.