Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Scottish independence

1454648505172

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It isn’t just about wind direction, if 120 warheads go boom half of Europe will experience the fall out.

    there seems to be a feeling that Faslane was chosen because….”**** the Scots” but the truth is it was selected because strategically, tactically and operationally, it was the best choice. Base and maintain the subs in Faslane, load weapons at Coulport on the way past and then you’re more or less out in the North Atlantic. The lochs are deep enough that a sub can sneak in and out relatively undetected and quiet enough that they aren’t going to bump in to an oil tanker. Add in the handy sop to the Scots of providing jobs, like they did when they moved all ship building up there and it was the ideal location

    it will be interesting to see what happens if Scotland does go it alone. If the SNP don’t need as much Green support then the pressure to remove nukes might not be as focused as it was when they were dependent on them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    What we can say, though, is that proximity to a large centre of population is clearly not a consideration that rules out a possible base for Trident so, if the UK does find itself relocating Trident, proximity to large centres of population won't rule out any site that they might be considering.

    Will they move Trident? Well, obviously, a lot of things would have to happen before that even becomes an issue, but let's suppose that Scotland is going to become independent. Even if not reliant on the Greens at that stage, the SNP itself is not keen on nuclear armament; their 2014 proposals included removal of Trident, so I'd guess that would be their opening position even if the Greens weren't pressing for it.

    But these things can be fudged; moving Trident would be project that would take years, and I doubt that the SNP would demand instant removal. So negotiations could go anywhere from a commitment in principle to eventual removal with no specified timeframe, to a detailed treaty provision specifying a removal process and timeframe, and arrangements for what would happen until them. And it would all be in the mix as part of larger negotiations. This isn't a simple binary.

    But we are focussing on the question of whether the Scots would want them removed. There's also the issue of whether the UK would. Would they want their entire nuclear capacity to be permanently located in foreign territory (or, even if the Scots were willing, in an enclave within foreign territory)? No other nuclear power seems to think that wise; would the UK? What would their attitude be if the Scots demanded joint control, or a veto over use, or an agreed policy on use, as a quid pro quo for hosting the facility? Simple self-respect would prevent the Scots from licensing the UK to locate its nuclear offensive capacity in Scotland and deploy it from there as it wished, without any regard to the implications for Scotland, so there will certainly be some ask about this. Even if Faslane is physically the optimal location, if it comes with baggage of this kind the UK might feel that it's not the overall optimal location.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    This discussion about Faslane is a sub-argument about the whole question of the nuclear deterrent. The Trident is expensive, is controlled by the USA and could only be used with their agreement. So what is the benefit to the UK?

    Now, I have always considered suspect the motive and rational of RAF pilots who flew the nuclear bomb armed V bombers that used to be the UK deterrent in the 1960s and later. Who would agree to pilot a plane on a mission taking off from a UK airfield armed with deadly nuclear bombs and head off towards Moscow with the intention of detonating those bombs over a highly populated city with the avowed intention of destroying that city along with the population? That pilot would also be aware of the MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) which would mean that his own homeland would also suffer annihilation and the pilot would have nowhere to go home to, so why would he be part of that action?

    The Russian forces were able to take over and annex the Crimea without a shot fired in anger. There is a thought. How did the nuclear deterrent help with that particular action?

    Scotland should want independence for its own sake, not because they would get a small economic advantage, or it would create some extra jobs in one sector or area while losing others in another sector. An independent Scotland will have many bumps in the road before attaining those same sunny uplands populated by unicorns as promised by Brexit.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    it depends on what you consider proximity. As I pointed out, Devonport is in the middle of a city, not 45 Km north west of one. We are more or less discussing why, if something is based in Brittas, can it not be relocated to Limerick Docks?

    If Scotland go it alone, Trident will move eventually, that is a given. as will Royal Navy shipbuilding.. Not only is it in the best interests of national security, it is also politically unacceptable to have such operations in a foreign country.

    The SNP may choose to replace these and obviously there will need to be an agreement on what forces transfer if Scotland is to remain in NATO, which then begs the question, will Scotland continue to host UK troops as part of its NATO alliance or what happens to those soldiers in Scottish regiments that want to remain in the British Army, presuming those regiments do indeed form the Scottish Army.

    I'm sure the SNP have this all planned though.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    can you provide something to support your claim that the US controls Trident and can only be used with their agreement?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    No of course I cannot.

    Trident is top top secret and all matters regarding Trident are very closely guarded and for all anyone knows, there may not be any nuclear warheads at all - a bit like holding someone up with an empty gun - will they take the risk if you look as if you will shoot them?

    Trident is a USA weapon, supplied by the USA, and spares and other requirements are also supplied by the USA. It follows, the USA has some call on the use of Trident, and it is highly improbable that the UK could use it without some level of consent from the USA.

    Remember the UK is one of the 'Five Eyes' spying network, so all UK intelligence is shared with the USA, but not necessarily a two way street.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    There were proposals on this in the 2014 Scottish White Paper though, obviously, what would actually happen would have to be agreed with the UK government when the time came.

    The highlights of the proposal were:

    • Withdrawal of nuclear forces from Scotland, and a constitutional ban on location of nuclear weapons in Scotland.
    • Scotland to have defence forces of 15,000 full-time personnel, plus 5,000 reservists, and a defence and security budget of £2.5 billion (at 2013 values). (This would imply a significant build-up from the level of forces currently based in Scotland. Target to do this in ten years.)
    • Focus on air and maritime capabilities and specialist coastal forces
    • Joint defence headquarters and conventional naval base to be located at Faslane.
    • Joint procurement projects with the UK.
    • Scotland would aim to be a NATO member right from independence.
    • Units of the Scottish army would carry the names of traditional Scottish regiments. This might be by transfer of existing Scottish regiments from the UK forces or, in the case of already-supressed regiments, by reviving their names. Negotiated arrangements for Scottish people serving in the UK forces to transfer to the Scots forces, if they wish, and vice versa if personnel serving in units transferred to Scotland wish to remain in the UK forces.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Oh, you seemed to make a statement as if it were fact.

    the weapon isn’t American, the missile is. The warheads and submarines are very much made in the UK.

    The development of the delivery system was part funded by the UK and they are on a kind of managed service from the manufacturer, so after an agreed period of time, each one is swapped out and sent back for servicing.

    Trident was only one option looked at when it was procured and it would make no sense for the UK to go for an option they can’t use, but as you say, it is top secret so no one really knows.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I wish them luck.

    NATO would obviously love to have them join, as the UKIG gap is considered a key strategic area, which is pretty much why Lossiemouth and Faslane are there. They also need to ensure that the disproportionate number of serving Scots are accommodated. I believe the phrase "Don't make me choose between my country and my uniform" were used during the last indy ref.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I think they're way ahead of you, Aegir. From the white paper, Scots citizens would be free (so far as the Scots government was concerned) to continue serving in the UK forces or, after independence, to enlist in them. And, conversely, non-Scots would be welcome to serve/enlist in the Scots forces. And, nuclear weapons aside, allied forces (including UK) would be welcome to be based in Scotland, or to come to Scotland for training or other operations.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 923 ✭✭✭ujjjjjjjjj


    British nuclear deterrent is under the sole control of the British government. Subs and warheads are British built. The missiles come from a shared pool of missiles shared with the US navy from a facility in the US (cost sharing). When missiles are live and in service in British subs (always min of 1 live sub at sea at all times) the British government has full operational control of these missiles with no US involvement. You could argue that US has some control as missile maintenance is in the US territory but the active missile systems at sea are controlled by British government alone. Of course US and British defence cooperation is deeply embedded and will remain so into the foreseeable future.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,630 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    The latest Tory move isn't going down well in Scotland:


    Meanwhile, Keir Starmer has announced Gordon Brown will lead a commision to settle the issue of the Union.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,283 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Offord headed up the bogus grassroots campaigning group 'Vote No Borders' which were later fined for refusing to publish their accounts. The BBC gave them huge billing on their news services when they started during the last referendum





  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight



    Both the Sottish and UK governments are setting up competing freeports. (something that could have been done while still in the EU)

    "This is a new way in which the Scotland Office is putting a Union flag on priority projects - and that's seen in Holyrood as disrespectful to devolved powers."



  • Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    The costing of the Boris bridge between Scotland and NI has been estimated, only £335bn, 15 times the cost of the channel tunnel.

     either a bridge or tunnel would be at the very edge of what could be achieved with current technology.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,355 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    If he won't supply a high speed rail line from Manchester to Leeds, then I don't think so. If only because the people of Yorkshire would string him up like Mussolini.

    Interestingly, the same money would buy you enough brand new jet aircraft to put over one third of the population of the 6 Counties in the air at the same time.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Which is admirable, as long as there is fossil fuel to power those jet aircraft.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,355 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Well obviously I was just highlighting the ridiculousness of the suggested budget.

    I think by the time any bridge or tunnel would be built, the fuelling technology for both planes and ferries will be much more advanced. Either way, a physical connection between the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland is never actually going to happen. Not in the 21st century anyway.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    They said the same thing about the channel tunnel in the first quarter of the 20th century.

    Lloyd-George talked bout it after WWI and the French just ignored it as a mad idea, even though the first attempts at a tunnel had already been tried.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    The Channel Tunnel connects two of Europe and the World's largest powers and economies, both historic or current. There may have been debate on the realism of digging a tunnel under the sea - and remains a feat of engineering - but the benefits were always sound, and obvious. Even after cheap air travel came to be. Johnson's flight of fancy along the Beaufort's Dyke (which I doubt he has even know about) never smelt anything more than a brainfart from someone trying to vocalise that "love bomb" tactic proposed by his cabinet to show interest in Scottish development from Westminster. Maybe a more discreet PM would have commissioned a quiet report first before blathering about a bridge between NI and Scotland; especially a leader with an existing reputation with questionable bridge projects.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    the tunnel should connect the two islands further south and it would be in Ireland's interests.

    Considering the government can't even build a rail line to the airport though, I don't hold out much hope.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    That still doesn't really address a singular logistical or economic need that might swallow the massive investment. The two Irelands and Scotland, with the best will in the world, are not large enough economies or entities (combined pops of 155 million vs. this debate at ~10 million) that could justify a boondoggle of that magnitude. While the new bridge wouldn't be serving any nearby population or commercial centres that it'd made sense (vs. Dover and Calais' existence as arteries within the respective nations).

    And it really can't be forgotten just how "easy" the distance between England and France is: 21 miles across relatively calm seas; enough to have regular charity swims or the occasional invasion force travel unmolested (I know this is a reduction, the WW2 Normandy landing almost scuppered by rough seas). Compared with the 90km (IIRC) between Ireland and Wales; and while google tells me NI to Scotland is only 12 miles at the North Channel's shortest point. The Dyke comes back into play, with the Guardian article saying:

    A tunnel would have to be constructed at depths of about 400 metres below water level, exerting significant pressures and requiring a 25-mile climb in either direction given a maximum rail gradient of one in 100.

    By comparison the Channel tunnel is just over 23 miles long, with a maximum depth of 75 metres.

    Those read like crazy numbers. I'm no engineer but I'm going to spitball that's exponentially more difficult to build a tunnel at 5+ times the depth; with 50 miles of heavy inclines/declines to boot. Leaving aside the ongoing maintenance, inspections and so on that'd be needed to ensure no horrible tragedy happened below the seabed. The more you think, the worse it gets IMO.

    Naw. There are big problems with Ireland's infrastructure, but a bridge connection to the UK is not one of them. It's worth calling a spade a spade here: Boris Johnson shot his mouth off, and so money was wasted on a public and pointless feasibility study for something overtly worthless. While only feeding into a narrative that Westminister is flailing to come up with tangible cross-union ideas as part of the previously advertised Love Bomb to tie up the disharmony across the UK



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    it will happen one day, of that I am convinced.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,614 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    The next ice age is surely within the next 10,000 years we’ll be able to walk to Britain then probably. If you can wait a bit longer continental drift will bring us all closer in the next 100 million years or so.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Convinced by what though? It is quite literally one of the most ludicrous proposals ever. I have a feeling that if Corbyn had won the last election and proposed the same thing as PM you would not be so gullible. For the same amount of money both Ireland and Scotland could build a Japanese style bullet train system covering the majority of their population centres. I know which one is more profitable and politically expedient. But I think we would both be fooling ourselves if we think either is going to happen.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I see rail as the future of high speed mass transit and lots of very joined up high speed rail networks all over europe. Whether this is rail or hyperloop or whatever, if Ireland isn't connected, it is just going get left behind.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,614 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    The reality of irelands geography will determine our history as it has done for centuries.

    sometimes it has been a blessing sometimes a curse. During world war 2 our geography was a huge blessing.

    During the dark ages on continental Europe Ireland was an isolated refuge for Christianity.

    During the Roman times Ireland was a refuge for Celts.

    Our geography and resources meant we missed out on the industrial revolution.

    but we don’t miss what we never had. It’s likely many parts of Ireland would resemble the North of England today if we had industrialised.

    We will never be part of any high speed integrated European rail system. It makes no economic or geographical sense. Maybe someday the cork-Dublin rail line could be upgraded to high speed but that’s decades in the future.

    Good smooth running airports and ferry terminals is what will keep us well connected.

    Maybe someday technology will allow ferries to run faster and reach france in a few hours that would be the real game changer for Ireland.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The costs of HS2 vs Ryanair ? At present rail is more expensive than flying or buses.

    Hyperloop is hype. To keep g forces low you need a large radius of curvature so lots of long bridges and tunnels unless you are crossing very flat country. Besides low passenger capacity so it's not mass transit.

    If they figure out a way to do tunnelling cheaply then we will have lots of cheap geothermal energy which would be nice.


    Be interesting to see how Brittany Ferries get on with their Seaglider electric Ekranoplane which would reduce the economic viability of a fixed link.


    Then again the Faroe Islands have spent lots on tunnels but a Scottish govt might well look at links inside the Shetlands first seeing as how they have a huge chunk of Scotland's EEZ. For the price of a bridge to NI, Scotland could link up a lot of it's islands. It would also send a signal about how things are getting better without Westminster.




    Sometimes it's perspective, Scotland would have no problem becoming an EFTA member with all the opt out's that implies.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    and what will Ryanair do when fossil fuel runs out? it would be great to see if an electric ekranoplan can actually be viable, maybe that is a solution.

    Back to Scottish independence though, building tunnels to/between the Shetland Islands may help the Scottish government stop the Shetlands leaving Scotland, along with all that lovely oil that is going to pay for the new eutopia.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    A tunnel from the Shetland to the closest point on the Scottish mainland would be more than three times longer than the longest passenger tunnel ever built anywhere, and it would make landfall at John O'Groats, which is ten hours by rail, or six hours by car, from Edinburgh. Nobody would use it. Even if it were technically feasible to build and operate such a tunnel it would cost much, much less just to pay every man, woman and child in Shetland £10 million pounds each to induce them to remain in Scotland, and that's a project that could be delivered much more quickly.

    But I don't know why you are speculating about the Scots building a tunnel to Shetland. Opinions about an independent Scotland vary, but nobody imagines that it is going to be led by a man who has missed his true vocation as the back end of a pantomime horse and who is afflicted with a slightly odd obsession with impossible bridges and tunnels. I think he must have had a traumatic experience in childhood on a waterway somewhere.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Tunnel to Shetland would be crazy.

    Tunnels or bridges or causeways linking some of the Shetland Islands to each other is doable as part of a "Look North" or cohesive project. And if this is to be believed costs would be in the tens of millions rather than tens (or hundreds) of billions.

    Links within the Outer Hebrides or adding more links within the Orkneys could be done too.

    Take a look at satellite imagery to see how far the sandbanks go to get a very rough idea of where some routes might go.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,283 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    In2014, the people in Scotland were told that the oil is gone. Now we are told that the Cambo oil field will be the saviour of the UK in the next decades


    The Shetland Islands are not leaving Scotland, that is just the unionist bogeyman. Interestingly unionists abhor the break up of the UK but egg on the break up of Scotland... go figure


    Meanwhile a new poll was published yesterday which marked a welcome change from the recent ones


    Post edited by A Dub in Glasgo on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I guess the Green half of the Scottish nationalist movement will be happy




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    There any speculation on what caused that 5 point swing? Something local to Scottish politics or just general malaise towards Johnson's cabinet?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The five-point swing is by reference to the previous IPSOS Mori poll on Scottish independence, which was last May. So this isn't necessarily a response to any particular development; could be a cumulative thing that reflects a number of developments or a gradual shift in sentiment.

    Or, of course, it could be just one of those statistical blips. I wouldn't get too excited about this unless polls conducted by other companies start to show similar levels of support for independence.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Fair enough. Honestly I had kinda presumed the support had dwindled cos the debate appeared to have fizzled out in light of the ongoing double whammy of CoVid and Brexit. That without a clear fulcrum people lost interest; while the SNP had dropped focus after the last public commitment to another referendum. Would make sense to keep the powder dry until the subject has immediacy once more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,630 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    The age breakdown of that poll makes for interesting reading:

    16-24: 71%

    25-34: 71%

    35-44: 63%

    45-54: 58%

    55-64: 49%

    65+ 34%

    Seems that the support for independence is very strong amongst the younger age groups and it's the elderly that are proving the hardest to convince. Unionists may have to hope that those who are in the pro-independence camp abandon the ambition as they get older but is that likely, especially since the young are the ones who will have burned the most significantly by Brexit?

    It's looking like independence is now a case of when and not if. The difficulty for Sturgeon and the SNP is that many of those who want independence are becoming restless. If she can't deliver a referendum by 2023 then she will look impotent; if she delivers an unofficial referendum, she risks spooking those who have come to the Yes side in recent years.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    People generally tend to become more conservative as they age, so it wouldn’t be surprising for significant numbers of young independence supporters to soften their position as they get older (assuming independence isn’t achieved first). Even if today’s 21 year old has good reason to feel Brexit has cost her a lot of benefits and opportunities, by the time she’s 40 — and probably has a career, a spouse, children, a home — she’ll be less likely to support as radical a proposition as independence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    It's less that people become more conservative, its that what is defined as conservative tends to get generally relaxed generation by generation. show a british conservative from the 80's their manifesto from the last election and they would probably think the conservative party had gone mad. Really the only genuine constants with conservatism Protect home owners, protect businesses, rings more true when you are older and become a home owner or involved in a running a business. Problem there is the UK is suffering just as much as Ireland with a home owning crisis and the current tory government have been as useful to business as a sack of sh*te. So the conservatives are pushing away those people who would shift more conservative as they get older.

    They should be concerned that the % is still quite high right up to people in their fifties.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Looking at those figures, it is the retired cohort who show a majority against independence - the grey vote.

    They can be placated and encouraged by promises and the reality that pensions, health service, free travel, etc. will only improve under Scottish control of the budget, and the absence of Westminster control.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,283 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    There are a lot of retired folk from England in Scotland. Not as much as the number in Wales but that would also explain the grey vote

    Post edited by A Dub in Glasgo on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    Scotland has a relatively high proportion of over 65s, higher than either part of Ireland. The demographics don't suit them, although they have had some population growth in recent years this may not continue as EU immigration has been greatly cut.



  • Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Not directly related to Scottish indpendence but interesting none the less. I always thought that the divergence between Scotland and England was due to the Roman invasion but from this story it goes back further.

    The peoples of Scotland and England were culturally divergent long before Hadrian’s Wall and the Roman invasion of Britain, research has revealed. A wide range of archaeological features, including the distinctive roundhouses known as brochs, are widely distributed in Scotland but are almost non-existent south of the border.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,630 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Thought this was an interesting point in light of Johnson's falling approval ratings.

    On the one hand, Johnson being in office seems problematic for independence supporters given he repeatedly rules out another referendum, yet the hostility he generates in office is great for recruiting frustrated, undecided voters; conversely, Starmer in office might go for another referendum (if he has to do a deal with Sturgeon), but would having what looks on the face of it a more vanilla, moderate PM temper the demands for dramatic change?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Were the above true, then the Yes vote would surely be sitting higher than it does? While it also supposes that Tory intransigence on the subject is solely coming from Johnson; no PM will want to be the one that signs away the Union. Can't imagine any new leader softening on the subject, the only difference being Johnson's spoofer persona maybe trembling the needle a small bit more.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    This subject has been super quiet of late, and to be fair there hasn't been anything really to report anyway. However, two interesting developments happened recently:

    1. The SNP government announced they were ringfencing £20 million for a 2023 election. This of course led to opponents using the Cost of Living crisis to wag fingers about spending money on referenda.
    2. An IPSOS poll taken end of May has the vote split down the middle at 50/50. That's a drop from what seemed to be a broad Yes in the mid-50s - but still higher than the Yes started at with the 2014 referendum




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    1. The answer to the cost of living conundrum it to say that if Scotland was independent, then Scotland alone would be able to tackle Scottish issues and problems, including the cost of living. Scotland would be able to prevent the importation of inflation from England because they are more energy independent than the rest of the UK.
    2. The opinion poll would be as a result of the lack of any daily news or political activity on the independence question. A bit of Tory scandal will soon ignite it and bring it into daily conversation - now that the Jubilee is over (at least for another decade).

    It will all kick off soon enough.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Funny you say that, point 1 was already asked & answered on BBC Scotland the other day; they grilled Kate Forbes, the Finance Secretary, and she responded with exactly that point. That divorced of Westminister, Scotland could tackle the energy crisis using the crazy abundant energy sources the country already has. This crisis may yet be another string in the bow of the independence movement, especially if the Tories continue to flounder with the various "let them use their bus passes" approach.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,630 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger rise in support for independence with the amount of Tory scandals that have gone on. Fifty per cent support is still a pretty good starting point for a referendum campaign given the dearth of leadership in unionism.

    I wonder, though, how a change of PM would affect things. I don't see Johnson going any time soon but he may be gone in a year or so. Will independence supporters get a better opportunity than having Johnson at the helm?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I'm not that close to Scottish politics that I could say for sure, but perhaps like a lot of other governments, Hollyrood suffered from public backlash for CoVid & the Cost of Living crisis; in that case, there might have been a drop-off of indy support? Independence also seemed to disappear from the zeitgeist for a while, might have also accounted for support fading a smidge. Will be very interesting to see how the polls go once the 2023 campaign ramps up; 2014 didn't start with a Yes that high.



Advertisement