Well I'd say talk of independence is dead for another while.
In the absence of anything coming from Westminster in regards to an Indy Ref 2 the SNP put its stock in the general election as a mandate for another referendum.
But with the massive seat loss for the SNP it's seems no one was interested, regardless of the 45% or so opinion poll support for independence
That was Joe Grimmond's seat.
In 2015 the only seat the Liberals got in Scotland was Orkney and Shetland. Which they've held for most of the last 200 years.
Well Lb would want to be looking to their second term. The Scot Lb MPs will be very important then, better having been good to Scotland in the meantime.
Labour will have a large majority. The Scottish contingent can be safely ignored.
Even if it was a small majority Scottish labour MPs would still have to follow the party line whereas the SNP could demand a higher price.
No need, Scotland could join the EFTA and be like Norway.
Labour are the nasty Unionist party in Scotland.
Much more visceral hatred towards the idea of Scottish self determination and the people who are for it, nevermind the orange order ones in labour, its the rest as well.
The Smith commission was not the same as the pledge in the vow - very much watered down by the Tories and Labour
It will happen, you cannot keep denying the wish of 50%+ of the population
Labour confirmed that GB Energy was not an energy company but an investment vehicle to pump taxpayer funds into private energy companies. It is more like the disastrous PFI schemes
wasn’t that all covered off by the Smith Commission and the subsequent Scotland Act 2016?
The EU is a rules-based organisation. Scotland will have to meet its rules and go through the accession talks. It should be relatively easy compared to somewhere like Serbia but it'll take years nonetheless.
im sure the eu would sort something for Scotland as they never voted to leave in the first place
Where is the connection to Scottish independence? Is this just whataboutery?
Keynes came out with a new theory - deficit spending.
It allowed Gov to spend money it did not have - which allowed the great depression to end. But it only worked while the Gov could borrow money which was OK until they could not. This gave rise to the various economic crashes, like the various devaluations of the GB£. [In 1945, the GB£ was worth US$4 - just for reference - today it is worth US$1.26.]
Then, we had the rise of the monetarists as a counter to Keynes. And so on - economic orthodoxy after orthodoxy.
Job security can be banjaxed by economic idiocy.
In the 2008 crash, the Irish Gov was forced to fire sale assets and caused massive unemployment, plus huge debt. In Covid, they did not do that. Why was that? Was it a different economic theory?
There's a difference between spinning the truth and outright deception. England is by far Scotland's most important trading partner. An independent Scotland would have to go through the full EU membership process and even then it will be significantly poorer.
I feel like your comment about economic theory is a bit silly. Most people are concerned about the economy and their jobs more than one ideology or another.
Is it populism or politics to push the envelope of truth to get your opinion across to a hostile audience by using your own facts?
Economics is largely misunderstood by the majority of any audience even an audience of economists. Look at the variation of economic theory proposed (and implemented) over the last 75 years.
The universal problem is that economic theory is adjusted to suit the now problem. Whether it is inflation, trading difficulty, low productivity, it usually is, basically, just shortage of money. So, they lie to disguise it.
Absolutely but that knife cuts both ways. It's extremely common for nationalists, even those of a liberal/lefty bent, to resort to populism when it comes to economic hard truths.
The IndyRef and Brexit just shows how easy politicians find it to lie on oath to further their point of view, and the more feeble their position is, the more they promise under oath, knowing they will never deliver on it whether they win or lose.
Ah, here we are, I knew I wasn't imagining it. A "pledge" issued via the Daily Record just 48 hours before the polls opened …
Nick Clegg though. Man remember those crazy few weeks when Clegg seemed like this new dawn? Didn't last did it.
Just 48 hours before the polling stations open in Scotland, voters were offered a pledge. Published on the front of the Daily Record, and thus aimed prominently and squarely at the traditional Labour voters who make up a lot of the Record’s readership, “the vow” reiterated that extensive new “devo max” powers for the Scottish parliament would follow hard on from a no voteon Thursday. It also promised the continuation of the Barnett formula in calculating public spending in Scotland and it promised that the final say on NHS spending in Scotland will rest with the Scottish parliament. It ended by pledging “faster, safer and better” change for Scotland than separation.Signed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, the vow’s political purpose was transparent. Its aim is to steady the Labour vote in Thursday’s referendum. Enough of that vote has been slipping towards the yes campaign to ensure that the outcome remains very much in doubt. Strong commitments to protect Scottish Labour voters’ traditional material and political interests may therefore make the difference. Getting the three leaders to sign up was an attempt to show that there would be no wriggling – to say that if Scotland votes no, these things will happen.
Just 48 hours before the polling stations open in Scotland, voters were offered a pledge. Published on the front of the Daily Record, and thus aimed prominently and squarely at the traditional Labour voters who make up a lot of the Record’s readership, “the vow” reiterated that extensive new “devo max” powers for the Scottish parliament would follow hard on from a no voteon Thursday. It also promised the continuation of the Barnett formula in calculating public spending in Scotland and it promised that the final say on NHS spending in Scotland will rest with the Scottish parliament. It ended by pledging “faster, safer and better” change for Scotland than separation.
Signed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, the vow’s political purpose was transparent. Its aim is to steady the Labour vote in Thursday’s referendum. Enough of that vote has been slipping towards the yes campaign to ensure that the outcome remains very much in doubt. Strong commitments to protect Scottish Labour voters’ traditional material and political interests may therefore make the difference. Getting the three leaders to sign up was an attempt to show that there would be no wriggling – to say that if Scotland votes no, these things will happen.
Devo Max never happened.
Instead they got Dave Max in the form of Brexit.
If we're talking about the same thing, IIRC there was a pronouncement, not long before the indy ref. vote, that if Scotland voted "No" it would receive what was nicknamed "Devo Max" amounting to even more autonomy from what Hollyrood already has. Open to correction here.
I hear this quite a lot.
What were the Scots promised that they didn’t get?
The Scots are easily pacified. Since the home rule bill in 1913 the only thing they have done about obtaining it is reject it when it was offered.
Cameron offered the Scots a lot if they voted against IndyREf, but delivered zero of it. So much for the Tory trust in Scotland.
Starmer is a Unionist.
Sure. I perfectly understand why Scottish people might vote Labour rather than SNP, and what they might hope would result from doing that.
My point is just that doing so reduces pressure on/incentives for Labour to make any concessions at all to Scottish nationalist feeling, or to support independence. Labour's a unionist party; they don't cease to be a unionist party when pro-independence Scots vote for them. The only way pro-independence Scots people can advance the cause of independence is by not voting for unionist parties. I understand why they might make a choice to vote for a unionist party, but they should be clear that that is the choice they are making, and they should accept the consequences of making that choice.
There's none. The Scottish nationalists can bleat all they want but it is not happening. I think most Scots want better public services than their own equivalent of Brexit.
Labour's pledged to establish GB energy in Scotland. I don't see the Tories offering the Scots anything at all, never mind anything better.
If there was a chance of a IndyRef ii then perhaps the SNP might do better.
However, voting Labour to get Labour MPs elected into the incoming Labour Gov might get a louder Scottish voice at the cabinet table - which might further Scottish interest more effectively than voting for the SNP who are having a few internal issues.
A GE is not a single issue matter.
Scottish voters don't have to choose between voting for independence and voting against the Tories; voting for the SNP is both. And, in this elecction, regardless of what Scottish voters do Labour are cruising for a massive majority and the Tories are going to be flayed alive. Now more than at any other time a pro-independence voter can vote for a pro-independence party without risking a Tory government.
Well, when voting, tere are conflcting issues.
Voting anti-Tory is more important than voting SNP - particular when the SNP are in disarray.
I don't think it is a problem for Labour, to be honest. The kind of pro-indepence sentiment that expressess support for independence in opinion polls but votes unionist in elections can safely be ignored.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
