Scottish independence

I just never hear English people criticising Irish domestic issues. I think Irish people would have a fit about it. Sure we get offended when they can't pronounce our Irish names.

I just can't see how the almost daily commentary on England is anything other than veiled anti English sentiment.

Talking negatively about England daily is specific to some Irish people.

I really dislike when posters come into threads trying to shut down discussions based on accusations of racism, tribalism or nationalism. The idea of a new country being created right next door is of course of interest to us. An independent Scotland could easily compete against the ROI with a low tax strategy for example. I doubt an independent Scotland will ever happen but the thread shouldn't be diverted into becoming an English victim mentality thread .

Yes no doubt about it the Welsh have got the short end of the stick to say the least from the English.

No question they have a ways to go for Welsh independence to be a real possibility any time soon. But there is no doubt also that an independence movement in Wales has been energized by the fallout from Brexit and the reality of Irish reunification and Scottish independence being very much real possibilities. When the Scottish do regain their independence it will be very interesting to see how the Welsh react in the subsequent years.

What I have always noticed about this thread is that it's as if Irish people with a nationalist outlook are trying to "stick it to the Brits" with their enthusiasm for Scottish independence.

They seem to think that the Scots should have the same attitude to the English as we Irish had when we got independence.

But it's not like that at all.

As you point out, Ireland's independence was only 65 years after the famine, the Irish were always regarded as inferior by the rest of the UK, and there was a very obvious religious difference at a time when religion was a much bigger deal than it is today.

And even given all of the above it still took an armed rebellion and the fallout from it to turn the public towards support for independence.

Prior to 1916 Irish people were pretty benign about being in the empire.

You have none of this with Scotland.

The last religious wars they fought were back in the 1600s and that was because the Scots didn't think the English were protestant enough.

The last uprising came in 1746.

Independence movements usually need a hook, something to show how different they are, it's usually religion or a language or some local trait that distinguishes them from the country or union they are trying to leave.

It's really hard to find that in the Scottish independence movement.

Religion is not a big deal, even though they have their own language it's not the main spoken or written language of the people.

So what is Scotlands hook ?

I don't think they have one.

Yes, some good points and it should be noted too that Scotland has a substantial Protestant population and people who were traditionally pro-union and pro-monarchy.

The one thing though that makes independence much more likely is the rise of 'English nationalism'. Many of the English Brexity types don't even seem to like the UK, don't identify with being 'British' and give the impression that they would be more happy to see Scotland and NI leave.

A very valid point on the border between Wales and England no question about it. A lot of work to do though I think by the independence movement within Wales before that even comes close to being a real live issue the border that is and what it would be. But nonetheless it is interesting to watch the first significant flowers of a Welsh independence movement developing.

That was very much about Brexit. Labour's vote has predominantly collapsed in Scotland under criticism of them being Tory-lite. Someone of the Corbyn wing of the party - who would support rejoining the EU, unlike Corbyn - would be the best way to combat the Labour slide. It doesn't look possible in the short-term. Starmer is opposed to Corbyn-style politics and is terrified of upsetting the working class English who voted for Brexit.

Decent enough piece here from the BBC about Scottish independence.

The conclusion: The SNP will have to play the long game and hope that the current cohort of young voters that currently show the greatest support for independence remain supporting it while the middle aged and older opponents literally die out.

Then if support is consistently in the 60% range for a long period Westminster can't deny a referendum.

And probably by that time it will be another generation on from 2014 anyway.

It is clear over the last few years that the SNP are more interested in devolution than independence. It would appear that parliamentary mandate means little in the current climate in the UK

It's moving away from ideas like mass strikes, civil disobedience etc that the SNP will be doing.

As the article alludes to they will sit and wait until the current older generation that see themselves as British are eventually replaced by the current and a new generation that have a greater sense of Scottish identity.

Sturgeon tried to use the differences between her party and the Tories as a vehicle to increase support for independence, trying to protray everything the Tories did as bad and everything the SNP did as good, but that backfired spectacularly.

SNP would be silly to get offside, like the Catalans. Get a max devo of some sort from Starmer and work with that.

The SNP seem to be is a sort of bother.

Arguments over what the membership numbers were.

Membership down 32,000 in two years.

The chief executive resigning, his replacement saying that the party is in a tremendous mess.

Even though it's not at the same level of disarray as the Tories, it hardly bodes well for the SNP if they want to convince people that they are competent enough to run an independent country.

The SNP leadership have been guilty of gerrymandering and corruption for a while now

Beth Rigby interview with Nicola Sturgeon on Sky 9pm tonight.

Just read this .

If true, it is a fairly damning assessment of the Sturgeon / Murrell hold on the party. The reality would seem to be very much at odds with the public persona of Sturgeon as the capable leader.

Either way it does seem the SNP 'brand' is damaged in the short to medium term. And with it the pathway to independence.

There is no wonder the SNP brand is damaged. Also the pathway to independence was a cull de sack from day one. Voters just didn't want to see that as the playbook was always the depressed minority within the UK and the evil of Westminster. ( Westminster, the ones who paid for everything the SNP promised.....)

There are far to many domestic problems in Scotland, starting from the Scottish NHS, to education issues. Also Scotland is sadly leading the number of drug deaths in Europe. Sturgeon also had no real succession planning upon her departure, no leader in waiting nothing of that sort. She also failed twice on the referendum issue, lost the first referendum, and the second one was overruled by the supreme court. Also when Sturgeon announced that she was stepping down, there was some kind of police enquiry into SNP finances.

Also the SNP is having a massive loss of party members recently. Sturgeon has been taking the Scottish votes for a ride for many many years, and I believe she left, before anybody is really smart enough to pin all these failures on her.

Maybe some Irish take fun into the idea of Scottish independence, but from a reasoning point of view, it's way better it never ever happens.

So even though education and health have been devolved since 1999 the excuse for them being in poor shape under the SNP for the last so many yeay is that Westminster aren't giving Scotland enough money to run them correctly?

Who is the smart money on here?

A party built on the flag of independence will by its nature, be a broad church. You have both christian and social democrats in the one party. It is in effect a coalition. Hard to keep that as one over a longer period of time.

The Scottish government can only allocate expenditure from what resources it receives, mainly in the block grant. And that is set in Westminster .It cannot decide to tax the City financial institutions in order to spend more on health and education.

Yousaf won but not by an overwhelming number.

Final tally was Yousaf 26,032 and Forbes 23,890 after distributing Regan's vote.

So endorsement for continuity, but not by much