Scottish independence

pixelburp wrote: »

So Galloway and Dumfries remains Tory. The entire border still a unionist stronghold then. I mean sure, it makes sense when looking at the history of the location (*side eyes Berwick*) but you'd imagine that might be where resistance or agitation starts against another ref. Heck, to get completely wild, could those areas petition to join England were there a breakaway nation? Berwick 2.0, albeit minus the bloodshed.

England could maybe try Donbas the area

Via Robert Peston's twitter:

Back to Scotland for a moment. I am told by a minister that the PM’s big plan to keep Scotland in the union is to love bomb it in the 18 months or so before Nicola Sturgeon introduces her referendum bill into the Scottish Parliament in late 2022 or early 2023.

That is consistent with my assumption that he knows he can’t stand in the way of a referendum without dishonouring the UK’s democratic heritage, and taking the whole UK to a very dark place. As Gavin Barwell argues, it is hard for a British PM to argue that parliamentary votes don’t matter, whether at Holyrood or at Westminster. His least risky strategy is probably to work out how to win a referendum, rather than looking at constitutional and legal devices to stop it.

The UK will not survive if its member countries are in the UK because of coercion rather than the choice of their citizens.

If this is true, it begs the question what these love bombs will consist of. I suspect it would amount to having Edinburgh and Glasgow host some diplomatic events, and an increase in flag-waving. Not sure the Tories are more imaginative than that.

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno. I think my history here shows support for independence but I'd be slow to think the path is secure either. Notwithstanding the odd idiotic bridge to NI, one underestimates Boris Johnson at ones peril. He has few supporters here but he is where he is by climbing over the bodies. Support for breaking away still only floats around the 50-55% depending on polling so hardly cut and dry. I'm sure SNP support remains stellar but to be fair, they run a tight ship compared with their neighbours. Yes 2014 started at a much lower point but CoVid changes the conversation. "Better Together" was aspirational puffery, here there's a not unreasonable argument of "now is not the time".

The trend for 2021 polling shows an average lead of 2% for remain. This trend has increased very slowly but jumped in the past month with the last three polls showing an average 6% lead for remain.

An Claidheamh wrote: »

“The UK’s democratic heritage?”

They’ve never been democratic

That Peston guy, heard him talk about the North recently and Brexit in past, doesn’t appear to have a clue

At the end of the day, it is up to Scotland to take independence by the reins

As it a United Ireland, it is FFG who do not want to trigger it, it is not Westminster’s prerogative

What's an FFG?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FF/FG necessity makes strange bedfellows.

Oh right. In actual fact it should be FFGG as the Greens are also in government. So, speaking of bedfellows, do we have to go down the road of a SFIRA opposition? Or in the context of Scottish independence, SNPG and CLLD?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It has according to the polls. The SNP need to drill down into why support has faded recently.

I think they have to be very cautious. The problem is that you can't have referendum after referendum. Especially if they lose it again. People will simply move on after a while ala Brexit. Plus the Tories will be banging the drum about the the cost of independence which will be significant. It might be better to hold off for a year or two in the hope that the Tories make a mess of the economy and Brexit realities hit hard.

The argument against it at this point would be that it's best not to introduce a divisive in on top of economic malaise. Don't want to be hitting people with that double whammy.

The timeline for the 2014 referendum was

May 2011 - Election to Scottish Parliament
May 2011 to October 2012 - negotiations between Scottish govt and UK govt about a section 30 order
October 2012 - Edinburgh Agreement on Section 30 order
January 2013 - power transferred to Scottish parliament (temp section 30 order)
March 2013 - Referendum date announced (18 Sept 2014)
Dec 2013 - Scottish parliament passes referendum legislation and Royal assent given
Sept 2014 - Referendum

Talk of a referendum actually taking place this year or next are fanciful given the timeline above but that does not mean preparations should not take place now

FWIW, independence was polling on average about 30% in 2011-12 (incl undecided)

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno. I think my history here shows support for independence but I'd be slow to think the path is secure either. Notwithstanding the odd idiotic bridge to NI, one underestimates Boris Johnson at ones peril. He has few supporters here but he is where he is by climbing over the bodies. Support for breaking away still only floats around the 50-55% depending on polling so hardly cut and dry. I'm sure SNP support remains stellar but to be fair, they run a tight ship compared with their neighbours. Yes 2014 started at a much lower point but CoVid changes the conversation. "Better Together" was aspirational puffery, here there's a not unreasonable argument of "now is not the time".

For Unionism, now is never the time. Ever. Funny that.

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1391161381546770446

Very few ways to spin that.

pixelburp wrote: »

Don't get salty; I was responding to the other post indicating that polling for independence has dropped of late. And for me, that's the only true bellwether for independence right now. Everything else is contextual IMO, the Indy polls cut to the point. And a 6% swing back is significant after sustained increase.

The SNP might have independence baked into its DNA but it is still a government in power with a specifically Scots focus. And a vaguely left leaning one at that IIRC; you don't need to be 100% behind independence to vote SNP if they're doing a "good job" in general. Their handling of CoVid seems much steadier than London, and At the risk of bias or reduction they seem the most principled political party in the UK ATM. Changes like the free supply of sanitary products in public female bathrooms as an example of truly transformative ideas.

As you said, it'll be 2 or 3 years before a new referendum comes along anyway so you'd imagine Sturgeon is smart enough to push it to the background a little, let the economic recovery from CoVid be seen to be driven by the SNP (which is probably the reason for Johnson's"love bomb" tactic; he knows Sturgeon is a clear rival [superior?]).

I'm not being salty. This just all reads as typical Unionist goal post shifting. ( know you're not a Unionist. But it's the sort of talk you hear repeatedly)

How opinion polls are more indicative of the true state of independence than an election that has delivered a pro independence majority yet again, just yesterday, is beyond me.

I'll concede that there's bound to be a few bizarro voters out there that would vote SNP but against independence, but you can't extrapolate that notion very far. Independence is literally the SNP's raison d'être. To ignore their mandate on foot of a couple of wingnuts is ridiculous.

Likewise, there's a large portion of Labour voters out there who are pro-independence, surely that more than cancels out your hypothetical SNP supporters? Or are we not allowed do that because it doesn't fit with the Unionist narrative?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Sturgeon has said she doesn't want a referendum until Covid ceases to be the main priority. She reiterated that on Marr's programme today:



It doesn't look like she has an appetite for a referendum this year, and I'd agree with that. I do think, however, that Johnson in Downing Street is a gift to the pro-indy movement, so you probably don't want to wait too long in case he has sunk his own support levels with some new scandal by that stage and either steps down or is pushed.

2022 or 2023 is the time to have it imo. You need a period of time to discuss the issues and campaign, so perhaps she will set a date later this year if society is starting to open up.

Again, that she has to reiterate the bleeding obvious is solely down to the Unionist media being so awful.

Unionists: "Now is not the time"

SNP: "But I never said it was going to be tomorrow!"

Unionists: "You see, the problem with Scottish Nationalists is that they want to have another divisive referendum..."

And so on...


Also, the use of "Scottish Nationalists" is just a way to stoke tension. It's infuriating.

An Claidheamh wrote: »

True but in reality if the Irish government said they wanted one, UK would have no choice, same if Stormont said they wanted one

Thats pure nonsense. No UK government is going to care about us asking.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Probably but it would also be a good tactical move. Let the vaccine/pandemic bounce fade away and let the Tory populists show themselves for what they are. Then point the finger and say how much better off an independent Scotland would be.

I don't know if this would be a particularly compelling argument for Scottish independence. It's asking voters to make a permanent decision based on something temporary, i.e. the current iteration of the UK government. For this argument to be successful, you would have to convince enough voters that the economic and political downward slide would be a painful and chronic one.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The timeline for the 2014 referendum was

May 2011 - Election to Scottish Parliament
May 2011 to October 2012 - negotiations between Scottish govt and UK govt about a section 30 order
October 2012 - Edinburgh Agreement on Section 30 order
January 2013 - power transferred to Scottish parliament (temp section 30 order)
March 2013 - Referendum date announced (18 Sept 2014)
Dec 2013 - Scottish parliament passes referendum legislation and Royal assent given
Sept 2014 - Referendum

Talk of a referendum actually taking place this year or next are fanciful given the timeline above but that does not mean preparations should not take place now

FWIW, independence was polling on average about 30% in 2011-12 (incl undecided)

As the pandemic hopefully fades towards the end of this year and hopefully we are back to normal in 2022 I think we will start to see the full negative effects of brexit come into play with no pandemic to mitigate or hide them. IMHO it would make sense for the SNP to let this happen and let the Tories keep on saying No No No a la Thatcher and all that together would put the SNP in strong position to not just hold the independence referendum but also win it.

eire4 wrote: »

AS the pandemic hopefully fades towards the end of this year and hopefully we are back to normal in 2022 I think we will start to see the full negative effects of brexit come into play with no pandemic to mitigate or hide them. IMHO it would make sense for the SNP to let this happen and let the Tories keep on saying No No No a la Thatcher and all that together would put the SNP in strong position to not just hold the independence referendum but also win it.

But that's exactly how it will play out. The SNP won't be touching a referendum this side of 2023.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Thats pure nonsense. No UK government is going to care about us asking.

They probably wouldn't be too bothered by anything Martin would say


However,

If the Irish govt made it clear they wanted a poll, Britain could not withstand pressure from US or indeed threat of all Ireland Republican violence (which would essentially be an invitation)

Brexit showed they are not willing to take on any type of IRA

View wrote: »

No one at British cabinet level is going to make a decision because the Irish government want them to do so. And the US isn’t going to upset a major NATO ally over something as trivial as NI.

Biden is visiting UK in his first overseas visit. It's not an accident he chose that. Whilst many Americans sympathetic to Irish causes, their priority is and always has been to Britain.

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden is visiting UK in his first overseas visit. It's not an accident he chose that. Whilst many Americans sympathetic to Irish causes, their priority is and always has been to Britain.

He's going to the G7 meeting. From there, he's going to the NATO summit.

This trip is about the G7 and NATO, not so much about the UK and Belgium.

hotmail.com wrote: »

The G7 meeting.

Symbolically, a nice coincidence to confirm the special relationship between Britain and America, a relationship and friendship that goes back decades.

Meh. If it's a relationship that only gets confirmed by coincidence it's not that special, is it?

The focus in the UK on who Biden calls first, which country he visits first, suggests the opposite of what it's supposed to; it suggest that in fact the UK — or, at least, some people in the UK — are pretty insecure about the special relationship. If the NATO summit had been scheduled for just before the G7 summit instead of just after, Biden would be visiting Belgium first. Would that mean that the relationship with the UK had been downgraded? Of course not. But, conversely, the fact that he is visiting the UK first really tells us nothing positive about the special relationship.

The substance of the special relationship is mainly about military co-operation and intelligence co-operation. The special relationship at any time is as strong or as weak as the incumbent US administration wants it to be, but you can't really read the entrails of official visit sequencing to determine how strong or weak it is. If you could, that wouldn't say anything good about the special relationship.

The UK is not the only country to have a name for its relations with the US. France is the "Oldest Ally", for example. These names tend to have more traction in the countries to which they refer than they do in the United States itself.

Even JFK was more English oriented than Irish.

The Americans love the Royal Family, love British culture and the feeling is mutual.