Scottish independence

Mr.Nice Guy · 17-01-2021 10:44pm

Raab was hopeless on the Andrew Marr show as regards the difficulties Scottish fishermen are facing.

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1350740369756008452

It can't be too long now before opinion polls start hitting that sixty mark.

Peregrinus · 18-01-2021 1:50am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Raab was hopeless on the Andrew Marr show as regards the difficulties Scottish fishermen are facing.

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1350740369756008452

It can't be too long now before opinion polls start hitting that sixty mark.

Ironically, Raab is correct. The problems that the fishing industry is facing don't stem from the TCA. They stem from the UK's decision to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. The most we can say about the TCA is that, although it alleviates some of the problems stemming from that departure, it fails to alleviate this one. And it could never really have alleviated this problem, unless the UK government were willing to compromise it's "no SM" and "no CU" red lines. So the failure of the TCA to alleviate this problem isn't because the TCA is poorly drafted, or whatever; it's because the UK government didn't want the TCA to alleviate this problem.

BonnieSituation · 19-01-2021 3:06am

New poll out shows a 51/49 split in favour of independence with Don't knows excluded.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-independence-indyref2-snp-vote-23341951

pixelburp · 19-01-2021 6:35pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

New poll out shows a 51/49 split in favour of independence with Don't knows excluded.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-independence-indyref2-snp-vote-23341951

An ostensibly surprising dip from the mid-50s previous polls had been showing. Especially given Brexit and recent Tory clumsiness re. Scottish fishing. Wonder what changed or is different with this survey; if there's some kind of cooling on independence, or just a deviance in terms of the demographics polled.

Water John · 19-01-2021 6:41pm

It can only be compared to previous Survation polls and I don't know what figures they provided.
You possibly have a situation of not much change being felt after Brexit in the immediate term.

Imreoir2 · 19-01-2021 10:21pm

Water John wrote: »

It can only be compared to previous Survation polls and I don't know what figures they provided.
You possibly have a situation of not much change being felt after Brexit in the immediate term.

The previous Survation poll had a very similar finding. There have only been two polls since the end of the transition period, one that showed independance with a 13% lead, and this one showing independance with a 2% lead.

Two polls from the same companies before Christmas gave essentially the same result. No trend to speak of other than that independance is clearly in the lead, only question is how much.

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-01-2021 10:28pm

pixelburp wrote: »

An ostensibly surprising dip from the mid-50s previous polls had been showing. Especially given Brexit and recent Tory clumsiness re. Scottish fishing. Wonder what changed or is different with this survey; if there's some kind of cooling on independence, or just a deviance in terms of the demographics polled.

Should really look at polls from the same polling company and the processes and weightings differ between companies

Here is some more detail from the site that commissioned the poll

https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/01/exclusive-scot-goes-pop-survation-poll.html

FWIW, I think the % of don't knows is still too high and the don't know vote generally is No

Water John · 19-01-2021 10:36pm

Think overall it needs one other major shift event. As Anthony Eden remarked on what moves the political landscape, "events dear boy, events".

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-01-2021 10:41pm

George Osborne being quite candid in his comment piece in todays Evening Standard. With the SNP shooting down a plan B, there is little hope that the current leadership of the SNP will do anything different and they get power for another parliamentary term

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/nationalism-union-brexit-b900299.html

...

Not any more. By unleashing English nationalism, Brexit has made the future of the UK the central political issue of the coming decade. Northern Ireland is already heading for the exit door. By remaining in the EU single market, it is for all economic intents and purposes now slowly becoming part of a united Ireland. Its prosperity now depends on its relationship with Dublin (and Brussels), not London. The politics will follow.

Northern Irish unionists always feared the mainland was not sufficiently committed to their cause. Now their short-sighted support for Brexit (and unbelievably stupid decision to torpedo Theresa May’s deal that avoided separate Irish arrangements) has made those fears a reality. It pains me to report that most here and abroad will not care.

Scotland is an altogether different matter. Its history is our history. Its contribution to the world through its literature and philosophy, exploration and art, is our contribution. Its departure — with no disrespect to the Welsh — would represent the end of the United Kingdom. The rest of the world would instantly see that we were no longer a front-rank power, or even in the second row. We would instead be one of the great majority of countries who are on the receiving end of the decisions made by a few, subject to the values of others. We would become another historically interesting case study in how successful nations can perform unexpected acts of national suicide.
Related

...
Surely SNP claims of easy trade deals, frictionless borders and a rosy future for Aberdeen fishing and Edinburgh finance can now be easily demolished? If leaving a loose union with European nations after a mere 50 years has caused such division and debilitation, imagine the trauma of sundering an intense 300-year-old union with those we share this island with.

But there’s a problem: this Brexiteer premier can’t say any of this. So what’s the second plan? Simple. Refuse to hold a referendum. It’s the only sure way you won’t lose one. Yes, the SNP will be in full cry — but so what? Domestic opposition has already evaporated, with the Labour leader there resigning last week.

As Tony Blair says, no one has been able to mount a fight since Ruth Davidson left the stage. There’s a risk that the Scottish government holds its own plebiscite — but that won’t be legal, and the courts will stop the arms of the Scottish state, like the police and civil service taking part. Ask the jailed Catalonian leaders how their illegal poll worked out. The only way you can have legal path to independence is through a referendum that is voted for by the House of Commons. So don’t vote for one. Whatever the provocation. Just say no, Boris, and save yourself a long anxious night in Downing Street.

Water John · 19-01-2021 10:47pm

Not having the Ref gets Boris to the next election if the Tories leave him there. But in the overall scheme of things that's an infintismal time.
BTW can Scottish boats land their catch in NI or ROI and it's in the EU market but Scottish quota?

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-01-2021 10:53pm

The same poll commissioned asked a question about the election in May

https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/01/scot-goes-pop-survation-poll-sensation.html

https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1351647370774159360

BonnieSituation · 19-01-2021 11:39pm

If the SNP get the expected majority, then the clamour will become deafening.

Unionists think they can just stonewall it but as it was said above, events dear boy, events.

PommieBast · 20-01-2021 12:15am

Water John wrote: »

Think overall it needs one other major shift event. As Anthony Eden remarked on what moves the political landscape, "events dear boy, events".

Think it was actually Harold Macmillan who said that..

Mr.Nice Guy · 20-01-2021 1:21am

I agree with a lot of Osborne's comments above, but I think there is a short-sightedness among Tories if they think just saying No is going to make the referendum issue go away.

It's a bit like a chap with an unhappy wife who wants them to go to marriage counselling telling himself that if he just keeps refusing her and saying no, she will stop wanting things to change, and everything will go back to the way he likes it.

At some point, the issue has to be confronted. The danger for the Tories is the longer they kick the can down the road, the more older and pro-Union voters leave the stage to be replaced by younger, pro-Indy voters, and so you end up in a situation where independence becomes an inevitability.

Peregrinus · 20-01-2021 2:39am

Water John wrote: »

It can only be compared to previous Survation polls and I don't know what figures they provided.

The Wikipedia page on opinion polling for Scottish independence maintains an up to date table (and graph) of polling outcomes.

The previous Survation poll was a month ago. It also showed a 2% margin in favour of independence, but with a slightly lower proportion of "undecideds" (14% in December as opposed to 12% in January, but that shift is within the margin of error so means very little). So it may be that something about the Survation methodology - the respondents they reach, the question they ask - tends to find lower levels of support for independence than other pollsters do. (This wouldn't necessarily mean that the Survation results were unreliable or inaccurate.)

More generally, there will always be outlier data points in survey data of this kind - it's in the nature of the thing. This particular poll shows a suprisingly (relative to what most polls show) low 2% majority for independence; back in October an IPSOS Mori poll showed a surprisingly high 16% margin for independence. It would be unwise to place to much reliance on either of them - pay more attention to the average of the polls, and to the direction of the trend over time - is support for independence rising or falling?

(Answer: It has been rising fairly steady since the 2017 UK General Election and the start of the Brexit negotiations commenced. It's been rising a bit faster since the end of 2019, when the Withdrawal Agreement was concluded and the UK formally left the EU.)

rock22 · 20-01-2021 10:10am

Looking at Peregrinus' reference/link, it is interesting that the 'No' vote seems to get a boost after the Brexit referendum, suggesting that voters were more attracted to an independent UK than to an Independent Scotland. Of course the change is only about 2-5%. But there has been a consistent, if small, climb in the 'Yes' vote since late 2017.

However the current poll results are about the same as at the time of the Scottish referendum in 2014. But the actual result was 45% YES to 55% NO.
It is possible that polls overestimate 'Yes' support, or that 'Yes' supporters are less likely to go out and vote. Or possibly the sampling is not getting a good sample of the population. It is impossible to know. But given the experience in 2014, i think the pro Independence movement would need to see figures over 60% to feel comfortable of a win.

So like Water John above, there might be a need for another significant event to move the figures by about 8 to 10 %

breatheme · 20-01-2021 10:20am

I can somewhat agree with that, if polls are 51 YES/49 NO, it's still pretty much a coin toss.

And maybe they can get away with another referendum sooner, but if the next one is a no, then it will be a long time before they get a third one.

Peregrinus · 20-01-2021 10:28am

Current polls are not "about the same as at the time of the Scottish referendum in 2014". "No" led in all polls in 2012 and 2013, and in all but 2 polls in 2014. The last ten polls before the referendum were all won by "no", by margins of between 1% and 7%. (The margin of victory for "no" in the referendum itself was 10%). Whereas "Yes" has won all except two polls in 2020, and it has won all of the the most recent ten polls by margins of between 1% and 16%.

Victory is by no means certain, but based on a comparison of the polls in both cases "Yes" is in a much stronger position now than it was in 2014, and "No" in a correspondingly weaker position.

Sam Russell · 20-01-2021 11:07am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Current polls are not "about the same as at the time of the Scottish referendum in 2014". "No" led in all polls in 2012 and 2013, and in all but 2 polls in 2014. The last ten polls before the referendum were all won by "no", by margins of between 1% and 7%. (The margin of victory for "no" in the referendum itself was 10%). Whereas "Yes" has won all except two polls in 2020, and it has won all of the the most recent ten polls by margins of between 1% and 16%.

Victory is by no means certain, but based on a comparison of the polls in both cases "Yes" is in a much stronger position now than it was in 2014, and "No" in a correspondingly weaker position.

In these types of situation, the run up to the vote is usually governed by a campaign that can catch a mood (or not) and give one side momentum, and that can carry the day.

Cameron promised 'Max Devolution' which is still waiting to be launched. That will not work next time.

The Unionist side threatened that an independent Scotland will be outside the EU and not allowed to use Sterling. That will not work next time either.

So which side will come out with the winning slogan?

20-01-2021 11:12am

Sam Russell wrote: »

In these types of situation, the run up to the vote is usually governed by a campaign that can catch a mood (or not) and give one side momentum, and that can carry the day.

Cameron promised 'Max Devolution' which is still waiting to be launched. That will not work next time.

The Unionist side threatened that an independent Scotland will be outside the EU and not allowed to use Sterling. That will not work next time either.

So which side will come out with the winning slogan?

Which bit of Devo max hasn’t been launched?

There seems to be an ongoing belief that "The Pledge" (which was from all three main UK party leaders, not just Cameron) has not been honoured, but there seems to be a lack of willingness to explain what/why.

rock22 · 20-01-2021 11:25am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Current polls are not "about the same as at the time of the Scottish referendum in 2014". "No" led in all polls in 2012 and 2013, and in all but 2 polls in 2014. The last ten polls before the referendum were all won by "no", by margins of between 1% and 7%. (The margin of victory for "no" in the referendum itself was 10%). Whereas "Yes" has won all except two polls in 2020, and it has won all of the the most recent ten polls by margins of between 1% and 16%.

Victory is by no means certain, but based on a comparison of the polls in both cases "Yes" is in a much stronger position now than it was in 2014, and "No" in a correspondingly weaker position.

I was simply summarising the link you provided which stated
"Polls in the run-up to the referendum vote showed a closing of the gap, with one poll giving the Yes campaign a 51–49 lead. In the referendum, on 18 September 2014, Scotland voted against independence by 55.3% to 44.7%, with an overall turnout of 84.6%."

My point was that the momentum seemed to be with the Yes side with "one poll giving the Yes campaign a 51–49 lead". which is similar to the latest result, yet the actual referendum result was for 'No' by a margin of about 10%.
Perhaps you are right, but personally I would be nervous of another referendum with only approximately 50 50 split. And as has been said by Breatheme, if another vote rejects independence then it is likely to be many years before another referendum.

bob mcbob · 20-01-2021 12:24pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

George Osborne being quite candid in his comment piece in todays Evening Standard. With the SNP shooting down a plan B, there is little hope that the current leadership of the SNP will do anything different and they get power for another parliamentary term

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/nationalism-union-brexit-b900299.html

Taking slightly different view from Osborne's quote in the Irish Times

The departure of Scotland from the UK would be a more serious matter, he implies, and it would represent the end of the United Kingdom “with no disrespect to the Welsh”.
He said the worst evening he spent in Downing Street was on September 18th, 2014, awaiting the results of the Scottish independence referendum with then prime minister David Cameron.
“We thought: are we the people who have lost Scotland? History allows for no recovery from a disaster like that. Ask Lord North, the prime minister condemned for all time for the loss of America.
“The mistake he made — and with Irish calls for home rule a century later — had been to assume that doing nothing was an option. Our referendum was a proactive plan to keep the United Kingdom together — and it looked like it had put Scottish nationalism back in its box for a generation.”

The arrogance of this - he is saying that the only reason that America is independent is due to the mistakes of Lord North and without him America would still be a colony.

Advising British prime minister Boris Johnson, Mr Osborne said he should refuse to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence.
“It’s the only sure way you won’t lose one,” he added.
“Just say no, Boris, and save yourself a long anxious night in Downing Street.”

So Boris getting a good nights sleep is more important than the democratic desires of millions of people. It pretty much sums up the Tory party.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/north-slowly-becoming-part-of-united-ireland-says-former-british-chancellor-1.4463045

bob mcbob · 20-01-2021 12:30pm

pixelburp wrote: »

An ostensibly surprising dip from the mid-50s previous polls had been showing. Especially given Brexit and recent Tory clumsiness re. Scottish fishing. Wonder what changed or is different with this survey; if there's some kind of cooling on independence, or just a deviance in terms of the demographics polled.

This poll took place last week before the scale of the Brexit shambles became apparent.

bob mcbob · 20-01-2021 12:59pm

As a follow up on the political genius of George Osborne in particular with the Brexit vote. From May 2016

Osborne in the middle of project fear.

Appearing alongside David Cameron, he said in a worst-case "severe shock" scenario, a UK exit could result in 6% lower GDP over two years, the loss of 820,000 jobs, a 4% fall in average incomes, a 15% collapse in the value of the pound and £39bn added to government borrowing.
The SNP leader, who is leading the campaign for a Remain vote in Scotland, said there would be an economic impact from leaving but the Treasury was "overstating its case".

Sturgeon said that project fear does not work

We only have to look at the Scottish independence referendum to know that kind of fear-based campaigning starts to insult people's intelligence and can start to have a negative effect."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36362047

We all know what happened next.

20-01-2021 1:58pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

Taking slightly different view from Osborne's quote in the Irish Times

The departure of Scotland from the UK would be a more serious matter, he implies, and it would represent the end of the United Kingdom “with no disrespect to the Welsh”.
He said the worst evening he spent in Downing Street was on September 18th, 2014, awaiting the results of the Scottish independence referendum with then prime minister David Cameron.
“We thought: are we the people who have lost Scotland? History allows for no recovery from a disaster like that. Ask Lord North, the prime minister condemned for all time for the loss of America.
“The mistake he made — and with Irish calls for home rule a century later — had been to assume that doing nothing was an option. Our referendum was a proactive plan to keep the United Kingdom together — and it looked like it had put Scottish nationalism back in its box for a generation.”

The arrogance of this - he is saying that the only reason that America is independent is due to the mistakes of Lord North and without him America would still be a colony.

That isn't what he is saying at all.

What he is saying is that Lord North is remembered for one thing and one thing only, the PM who lost America.

That's the biggest issue for a PM, I doubt very much if they care whether or not Scotland leaves or stays, they just don't want to be the person remembered for holding the reigns when it happened.

A Dub in Glasgo · 20-01-2021 2:04pm

Aegir wrote: »

I doubt very much if they care whether or not Scotland leaves or stays, they just don't want to be the person remembered for holding the reigns when it happened.

Osborne states

[Scotland independence] would represent the end of the United Kingdom. The rest of the world would instantly see that we were no longer a front-rank power, or even in the second row. We would instead be one of the great majority of countries who are on the receiving end of the decisions made by a few, subject to the values of others. We would become another historically interesting case study in how successful nations can perform unexpected acts of national suicide.
Related

So how can Boris Johnson avoid this disaster

Sounds like England would care

20-01-2021 2:12pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Osborne states

Sounds like England Osborne would care

fixed that for you

Lumen · 20-01-2021 3:39pm

It's a bit like arguing that you don't want a divorce because you can't stand the idea people knowing that you couldn't keep a marriage together.

Not the kind of argument to win back the love of a neglected spouse.

BonnieSituation · 20-01-2021 5:38pm

Aegir wrote: »

Which bit of Devo max hasn’t been launched?

There seems to be an ongoing belief that "The Pledge" (which was from all three main UK party leaders, not just Cameron) has not been honoured, but there seems to be a lack of willingness to explain what/why.

Given you feel so strongly that The Pledge has been honoured, then perhaps you could inform us about the detail.

20-01-2021 5:58pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Given you feel so strongly that The Pledge has been honoured, then perhaps you could inform us about the detail.

it takes about six seconds to google that.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/contents/enacted

so tell me, which bit you have a problem with?

Capt'n Midnight · 21-01-2021 12:56am

bob mcbob wrote: »

As a follow up on the political genius of George Osborne in particular with the Brexit vote. From May 2016

Osborne in the middle of project fear.

Appearing alongside David Cameron, he said in a worst-case "severe shock" scenario, a UK exit could result in 6% lower GDP over two years, the loss of 820,000 jobs, a 4% fall in average incomes, a 15% collapse in the value of the pound and £39bn added to government borrowing.
The SNP leader, who is leading the campaign for a Remain vote in Scotland, said there would be an economic impact from leaving but the Treasury was "overstating its case".

Brexit has already cost the UK £200Bn

Scottish Whisky faces a 25% tariff in the USA because it's UK and not EU whisky.

Scottish fishing is being decimated.

And Sterling has dropped by how much since the Brexit referendum ?

Peregrinus · 21-01-2021 3:15am

But, Aegir, if devo max has been delivered, that doesn't really help the unionist cause now. Becuse (a) the delivery of devo max didn't assuage the appetite for independence more that temporarily (at best); it appears to be higher now than it was when devo max was promised. And (b) devo max, having already been delivered, cannot be delivered again. This time round, Westminster would have to promise something else. Devo max max? Devo max²?

Whatever. If devo max didn't succeed in defusing the demand for independence, then there is no reason to assume that devo max² will do the trick; when a policy has been tried and has failed, trying harder is a really bad strategy.

It seems to me that the renewed appetite for independence has been fuelled by Brexit and by the manner of its implementation. If unionists want to assuage that appetite, they need to analyse what has caused it and frame a strategy for defusing that. Promising devo max² is certainly not that strategy. Brexit is a done deal and cannot be reversed — certainly not within the timeframe needed to take the steam out of the independence movement. Perhaps the best unionists can do is to offer fundamental constitutional change that would ensure that nothing of the scale and signficance of Brexit could ever happen again without the assent of Scotland. I don't know whether that would be sufficient — door, horse, bolted — but it would at least be meaningful. But for a variety of reasons I doubt that it would be acceptable to the faction that now dominates the Tory party, which presumably would explain why Johnson is not going there.

Thus far Johnson's defence seems to be simple stonewalling — he won't allow a referendum; therefore the question of whether the Scots want independence doesn't arise. But this can't be a viable long-term strategy; to save the union unionists need to win the argument, not avoid it.

21-01-2021 10:13am

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, Aegir, if devo max has been delivered, that doesn't really help the unionist cause now. Becuse (a) the delivery of devo max didn't assuage the appetite for independence more that temporarily (at best); it appears to be higher now than it was when devo max was promised. And (b) devo max, having already been delivered, cannot be delivered again. This time round, Westminster would have to promise something else. Devo max max? Devo max²?

Whatever. If devo max didn't succeed in defusing the demand for independence, then there is no reason to assume that devo max² will do the trick; when a policy has been tried and has failed, trying harder is a really bad strategy.

all very good questions. It doesn't detract from the fact that post indyref, a cross party group was formed under the leadership of Robert Smith to investigate further devolution and its conclusions agreed and implemented. This group included members of the SNP and Scottish greens.

The fact that a number of those powers have not been implemented is purely down to the Scottish government choosing not to.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-01-2021 10:41am

Aegir wrote: »

all very good questions. It doesn't detract from the fact that post indyref, a cross party group was formed under the leadership of Robert Smith to investigate further devolution and its conclusions agreed and implemented. This group included members of the SNP and Scottish greens.

The fact that a number of those powers have not been implemented is purely down to the Scottish government choosing not to.

The parties to the Smith Commission also agreed the following, how are they honouring that?

21-01-2021 10:52am

the report has been honoured, it covers the devolvement of powers to the Scottish parliament.

By your logic, the Smith commission does not say Scotland should be an independent country, so the SNP are not honouring it by pushing for a referendum.

this kind of logic is very Faragesque. what next, Westminster is taking away our bendy bananas?

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-01-2021 10:58am

The report states that the parties will honour the right of the people of Scotland to choose independence, how is that being honoured by the Conservative Party (or even the Labour Party)?

21-01-2021 11:48am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The report states that the parties will honour the right of the people of Scotland to choose independence, how is that being honoured by the Conservative Party (or even the Labour Party)?

and how has that right been taken away?

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

Do you really think that holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic is the right thing to do? Come to think of it, should the elections in May still go ahead?

pixelburp · 21-01-2021 12:00pm

Aegir wrote: »

and how has that right been taken away?

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

Do you really think that holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic is the right thing to do? Come to think of it, should the elections in May still go ahead?

We've literally just seen a major democratic election take place, in a country with a pretty bad adherence to CoVid advice; I think the question of whether elections should take place is moot. They can happen with the right precautions.

As to how often a referendum takes place, it feels disingenuous to ignore the significant narrative Brexit has played in stirring the pot. The last referendum failed off the back of an open, very public narrative of "say No and stay in the EU". Better Together. Only 2 years later, that was proven demonstrably false, with Scotland pulled out of the EU anyway - even though it rejected Brexit by the largest majority across the 4 constituent states. Who can say how many voted No in 2014 because of that pragmatism that doing so kept Scotland in the EU. Now they're out, mostly because of a surge in English nationalism.

Ordinarily, I'd agree: 6 years between referenda is nonsense & far too short. However, that would be to willfully ignore the context and changes that have taken place across those 6 years to significantly change Scottish politics, and society. I'd go so far as to say that 2014 referendum happened under false pretences.

L1011 · 21-01-2021 12:05pm

Aegir wrote: »

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

The UK already has an agreed repeat interval structure should NI have a failed border poll - 7 years. Which we're now at.

Different situation but comparable.

Sam Russell · 21-01-2021 12:09pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Ordinarily, I'd agree: 6 years between referenda is nonsense & far too short. However, that would be to willfully ignore the context and changes that have taken place across those 6 years to significantly change Scottish politics, and society. I'd go so far as to say that 2014 referendum happened under false pretences.

If 6 years is too short, why do they have General Elections every five years?

We see that Joe Biden in his first day in office signed 17 executive orders that reversed totally some of executive orders signed over the last four years by his predecessor (who ever he was). If he can reverse all his predecessors actions in his first day, that is democracy in action.

If the circumstances change, then it can be time for political change to reflect that change. After all, the arguments for remaining in a union or leaving that union can be applied equally to the EU as it can be to the UK. Isn't it hypocritical to say it applies absolutely to one and definitely not the other?

Lumen · 21-01-2021 12:12pm

If the Scots want to be out of the UK, that's great for them.

But I'd like to see at least 60/40 in favour, or >50% of the electorate. Same with a united Ireland, both sides of the border.

Wafer slim majorities in these matters are a recipe for grievance and division.

I think there is a strong case for re-running the referendum now that Brexit is done, but maybe wait a year or so for the dust to settle so the Scots can see how ROI and NI are coping with a non-EU landbridge. Even if a referendum was held now, I can't see that exit wouldn't be fast enough to save the businesses hit by Brexit trade barriers, and it would might remove all pressure from Westminster to pursue short term mitigations.

pixelburp · 21-01-2021 12:15pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If 6 years is too short, why do they have General Elections every five years?

I think I've explained my thinking in the part you quote; that if the circumstances around which the referenda took place have changed that seismically - as they did with Brexit - then a re-run makes eminent sense. NI's very existence is fragile enough that the 7 year lag time for a Border Poll is there to catch immediate results of the poll. Otherwise, you really are just running something again, hoping or angling for a different result. It's not necessarily anti-democratic but is a general waste of time, money and energies better used elsewhere. As to General Elections, well having them every 4, 5 years is, if nothing else, a simple bulwark against an easy slide into autocracy aside from anything else

21-01-2021 12:36pm

pixelburp wrote: »

We've literally just seen a major democratic election take place, in a country with a pretty bad adherence to CoVid advice; I think the question of whether elections should take place is moot. They can happen with the right precautions.

they can, but that doesn't mean they should.

for the record, I think the Holyrood elections should take place, but holding an independence referendum seems like an unnecessary risk, especially when we are hopefully starting to see light at the end of the tunnel

pixelburp wrote: »

As to how often a referendum takes place, it feels disingenuous to ignore the significant narrative Brexit has played in stirring the pot. The last referendum failed off the back of an open, very public narrative of "say No and stay in the EU". Better Together. Only 2 years later, that was proven demonstrably false, with Scotland pulled out of the EU anyway - even though it rejected Brexit by the largest majority across the 4 constituent states. Who can say how many voted No in 2014 because of that pragmatism that doing so kept Scotland in the EU. Now they're out, mostly because of a surge in English nationalism.

a surge which was a direct result of the Scottish referendum.

One million Scots voted to leave the EU, it could easily be said that those one million also voted for independence as they saw it as a way out of the eu as well. I agree that Brexit is a significant event, but i'm not sure you can make the direct correlation between people voting YES and voting to remain.

pixelburp wrote: »

Ordinarily, I'd agree: 6 years between referenda is nonsense & far too short. However, that would be to willfully ignore the context and changes that have taken place across those 6 years to significantly change Scottish politics, and society. I'd go so far as to say that 2014 referendum happened under false pretences.

you can only say it as false pretences if the no side knew that the UK was going to leave the EU. The main characters in the no campaign were all campaigning to remain.

Before the question of another referendum is posed, I believe the Holyrood elections need to take place. If there is a significant move towards the independence parties then i would agree that the time is right, but it seems pointless to do so beforehand.

21-01-2021 12:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If 6 years is too short, why do they have General Elections every five years?

We see that Joe Biden in his first day in office signed 17 executive orders that reversed totally some of executive orders signed over the last four years by his predecessor (who ever he was). If he can reverse all his predecessors actions in his first day, that is democracy in action.

If the circumstances change, then it can be time for political change to reflect that change. After all, the arguments for remaining in a union or leaving that union can be applied equally to the EU as it can be to the UK. Isn't it hypocritical to say it applies absolutely to one and definitely not the other?

a vote for independence or in NI's case unification, it is a one way street. There is no going back.

A general election does not change things permanently.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-01-2021 12:48pm

Aegir wrote: »

and how has that right been taken away?

Should there be a six monthly referendum? annual? whenever you feel like it?

Do you really think that holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic is the right thing to do? Come to think of it, should the elections in May still go ahead?

Mandates arising from elections in Scotland?

Sustained polling showing majority support for holding a referendum?

You want to deny the people of Scotland the chance to revisit their decision from 2014, why?

Any referendum will be at least a year away

21-01-2021 1:14pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Mandates arising from elections in Scotland?

Sustained polling showing majority support for holding a referendum?

You want to deny the people of Scotland the chance to revisit their decision from 2014, why?

Any referendum will be at least a year away

mandates from which election?

The last general election where the SNP got 45% of the vote, or the last Holyrood one where they got 46%?

I have no interest in denying the Scots of anything (notice I use the term Scots there, not people of Scotland. I don't believe non Scots should have the right to vote, just as i would not wish to vote on Irish unification) I just don't believe the time is right.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-01-2021 1:51pm

It is not for you or the Tories in England to decide that

Pro-independence parties have won every election in Scotland since 2015. In normal functioning democracies, parties put their manifesto to the electorate and the one who wins and can form a governement gets to enact their manifesto. This is how the Conservaties introduced the referendum on Brexit. You now want the goalposts to be moved

What is the expected outcome of the 2021 election?

There is no defined 'Scot' therefore it is the people who live in Scotland who should determine their future. The independence movement in Scotland is not about blood and soil nationalism as you want it to be

21-01-2021 2:52pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is not for you or the Tories in England to decide that

it is up to the Prime Minster of the UK, whoever that may be at the time.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Pro-independence parties have won every election in Scotland since 2015. In normal functioning democracies, parties put their manifesto to the electorate and the one who wins and can form a governement gets to enact their manifesto. This is how the Conservaties introduced the referendum on Brexit. You now want the goalposts to be moved

What is the expected outcome of the 2021 election?

we'll know when the election is held. If the SNP/Greens get a majority again then great, go for a referendum. As I have said, I don't think the time is right at the moment.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There is no defined 'Scot' therefore it is the people who live in Scotland who should determine their future. The independence movement in Scotland is not about blood and soil nationalism as you want it to be

what is it about then?

I gave my opinion, that's all. I just happen to believe that there is a limit to what to non citizens should be able to vote on (the UK for example allows the Irish to vote in referendums, but the Irish do not reciprocate that for some reason), hence my saying I would not vote in an Irish unification referendum. Apologies if that doesn't suit you.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-01-2021 5:41pm

Aegir wrote: »

it is up to the Prime Minster of the UK, whoever that may be at the time.

Is the UK a voluntary union?

21-01-2021 8:37pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Is the UK a voluntary union?

Good question. One that unfortunately was not considered when our forefathers created it.

Scottish independence

Comments