Scottish independence

Civil war in Scotland is about as likely as the EU booting Ireland out of the single market 😁

Very important for the SNP to look like the best bets for economic stability as a significant number of swing voters will likely base their vote on who they trust more with the economy. The next opinion polls will be fascinating after the recent news. Royalists were suggesting a bump in support for 'No' on the back of the funeral coverage and aftermath, but it might be a swing in the opposite direction due to the economic instability of Truss' current policies.

They're English, I'd imagine

thats a fair wedge, more than I thought it would be. If the Tories manage to get a referendum needing 60% as theyve been planning that almost 9% English likely voting no makes it a fair bit harder for it to pass

Big week coming up with the Supreme court. Let us see if the SNP have the back bone to start the planning and consultations with other independence groups for the plebiscite election given that most think the supreme court will rule against the Scottish parliament

Social and economic policies are broadly similar. They are neo Liberal capitalist nationalistic type parties. They may differ on the details of specific policies but that's all.

The notion that the SNP are some revolutionary party is completely ridiculous. Many members of SNP are just as right wing as the Tories - but they are drawn to the SNP because of the independence policy.

In fact, if Scotland did get her independence, it's likely the SNP will split between left and right wing parties.

Sturgeon was asked by Kuenssberg Truss or Starmer for PM. She replied “If the question to me is would I prefer a Labour government over a Tory government — I detest the Tories and everything they stand for — so it’s not difficult to answer that question,”

It is manufactured outrage from unionists

Indeed. The SNP is held together by independence but they are not so coherent on other policies.

Their last leader Alex Salmond was essentially a centre right politician. Sturgeon is more to the centre, but by no means left wing or radically different to Tory policy.

Her language was not only divisive, it was just stupid.

If he really thinks this, why not push for the referendum, win it, and put the issue to bed for the next decade?

I find the attitude of 'no referendum because the country is divided' to be odd. If there is no referendum, the country is still divided because those in favour of independence are having to sit there and like it. The only way to stabilise politics is to address it. They can't put it off forever.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.