Tuesday, June 2, 2015

"There's no precedent for that in a UK-wide vote"

I'm not having a go at Huw Edwards, who is one of the good guys, but it has to be said that the objection he raised to Nicola Sturgeon's "double majority" idea was the worst I've heard so far.  For pity's sake, there have only been two UK-wide referendums in the whole of history (the Common Market in 1975 and AV in 2011), so when you point to a lack of precedent, you're not exactly harking back to the Magna Carta.

What precedent was followed when the 40% rule was cynically imposed in the 1979 devolution referendums?  It hadn't been there in the 1975 European vote.  What precedent is now being followed in excluding citizens of most EU countries, plus 16 and 17 year olds?  They all had a vote in last year's referendum.  Westminster has always been quite happy to make up the rules as it goes on.

Of course Nicola Sturgeon knows perfectly well that the double majority will be rejected, but that doesn't mean her logic for putting it forward can be faulted.  She put the case more explicitly today than I've ever heard it before - her proposal is specifically designed to prevent the necessity for Scotland becoming independent as a direct result of an "Out" vote in the EU referendum.  If unionists don't take her up on it, they only have themselves to blame for the potential consequences.

72 comments:

  1. "What precedent is now being followed in excluding citizens of most EU countries, plus 16 and 17 year olds?"
    The precedent of every UK-wide general election or referendum in history - including the one held 4 weeks ago?

    One vote, in one part of the UK, doesn't make a precedent. Among the British public and British politics as a whole it clearly isn't widely accepted that foreigners or teenage children should vote on matters of national importance, such as whether we stay or leave the EU.

    In particular the inclusion of EU nationals would be an outrage to many, especially as it opens the possibility in a close vote of the EU vote keeping us in while British citizens vote out.

    (though I actually think the EU vote will be In by a fairly big margin. You'll have all major political parties bar UKIP, business, much of the media, and basically everyone else who is credible coming down on the In side. On the Out side, a couple of newspapers, UKIP, some Tory backbenchers, and parts of the extreme left. The extreme left and right will repel the moderates, as they seemingly already have done as evidenced by rising In figures in the poll. And also factor in the British public's proven preference for the status quo.)

    If these EU migrants want a say on the future of the UK, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to become a British citizen, in the process, renounce their allegiance to their country of birth and swear allegiance to ours. I wouldn't expect to arrive in another country and be handed a ballot paper immediately either.

    As for 16 and 17 year olds, voting is an adult responsibility and should remain so. The arguments put put forward for letting them vote in the EUref apply to younger children too - "it'll affect their futures", etc. Despite it's rhetoric the SNP agrees that 16 and 17 year olds are not adults and need a special level of protection and supervision: Their "named person" scheme applies to people below 18.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curious to know if you think it's ok for non-voting 16-year-olds to die for their country in wars?

      Delete
    2. "The precedent of every UK-wide general election or referendum in history - including the one held 4 weeks ago?"

      Nice try. A general election is not a referendum. If you want to include other types of election, we can naturally include other UK-wide elections, most obviously European Parliament elections, in which all EU citizens resident here are permitted to vote.

      "If these EU migrants want a say on the future of the UK, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to become a British citizen..."

      If we had applied strict conditions on English people voting in the independence referendum, you'd have had a conniption fit, and rightly so.

      "in the process, renounce their allegiance to their country of birth and swear allegiance to ours."

      Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Nobody is required to do that when becoming a British citizen.

      "As for 16 and 17 year olds, voting is an adult responsibility"

      So is paying taxes. Are you going to exempt them from that? Let's try and be consistent, shall we?

      Delete
    3. If these EU migrants want a say on the future of the UK, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to become a British citizen, in the process, renounce their allegiance to their country of birth and swear allegiance to ours.

      That's daft. I've never sworn allegiance to the UK, but am permitted to vote in its elections.

      Delete
    4. Are you arguing that English, Welsh and N. Irish migrants to Scotland who are allowed to live here due to freedom of movement within the UK Union should not have been allowed to vote in the Scottish independence referendum / should not get a vote in any future one? That only those who would qualify for Scottish nationality under standard rules (e.g. as used for UK nationality, so for Scotland... born in Scotland...of Scottish parentage etc) should get to vote?

      Wow. That sounds a bit like ethnic nationalism.

      Ok, I see you want them to give up being e.g. English and swear allegiance to Scotland before they can vote. Jeez, that's some proposal.

      Can't say I agree.

      Delete
    5. Aren't Irish and Commonwealth citizens who are being allowed to vote foreigners?

      Delete
  2. On thing that's been niggling at me.
    I know this is really unlikely but supposing Scotland voted to leave but the rest of the UK voted to stay!
    What on earth would be the SNP position on that. Right now I don't even know what I think their position should be if that were to happen. Hm. Weird one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm now ready to answer my own question.
      If Scotland voted to leave the EU but was kept in by the rest of the UK voting to stay, I reckon the SNP should then pledge to hold a referendum on the EU after independence. Can't see another ethically sound stance. Thoughts?

      Delete
    2. Another interesting hypothetical scenario would be if Scotland, Wales and England heavily voted to leave, and Northern Ireland (say) marginally voted to stay. To be consistent, surely the SNP would then have to argue that the UK should stay in? Which seems mad, but unless I've misunderstood it, it's the logic of their position.

      Delete
    3. That's not merely the logic of their position, it is their position. Why is it mad? Is Northern Ireland less important than Scotland?

      Delete
    4. I am not sure if this is constitutionally what would happen in Keaton's example but surely that would be we would leave and then Northern Ireland would have a decision to make, namely whether to see if the rest of the UK would allow them to remain in the UK and the EU at the same time and, if not, whether they valued remaining in the UK or the EU more (another referendum for them)? Certainly, I would think that was fairest if that's what Northern Ireland's people wanted.

      Delete
    5. And if NI stayed in EU while GB left presumably there would have to be some sort of accommodation with Eire. Two Ireland's in EU or United Ireland?

      Delete
    6. There's no obvious reason why NI couldn't remain on its own if that's what the people there wanted. I'm also led to believe that there was some precedent somewhere (Greenland? Denmark?) where the smaller place remains part of the kingdom but outside the EU/EEC. Though there are obviously difficulties to get past in any such situation, these should not be used as an excuse to prevent people getting what they vote for.

      As it happens, I believe all this will be moot as I think, in the end, the vote will be a resounding IN one everywhere.

      Delete
    7. That's not merely the logic of their position, it is their position. Why is it mad? Is Northern Ireland less important than Scotland?

      In the sense that it's less populous than Scotland, yes, it's less electorally important. If 100% of Scotland, Wales and England vote to leave the EU, and Northern Ireland votes 50.001% to stay in, it would be obviously undemocratic for the UK then to stay in.

      I am not sure if this is constitutionally what would happen in Keaton's example but surely that would be we would leave and then Northern Ireland would have a decision to make, namely whether to see if the rest of the UK would allow them to remain in the UK and the EU at the same time and, if not, whether they valued remaining in the UK or the EU more (another referendum for them)? Certainly, I would think that was fairest if that's what Northern Ireland's people wanted.

      That would indeed be the fairest thing, but it's not what the SNP are proposing. Under their suggestion, an NI voter's say counts for more than a Welsh one, a Welsh one more than a Scottish one, and a Scottish one more than an English one. It's FPTP on steroids.

      But I don't think the SNP believe it would be fair, either. My impression is that it's supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum of Better Together's "equal partners" mush, to show how hollow those words were, and how ludicrous their implementation would be.

      Delete
  3. By this logic, non Scottish born should not have voted in last year's referendum.
    Scotland would now be independent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just saw your post after commenting along the same lines above. Yes, studies suggest if the vote had been confined to 'Scottish' people (e.g. by birth, parentage) under the same rules used to define British citizenship (but applied to Scotland), Scotland would be becoming independent right now.

      Delete
  4. You presuppose that you will win a second referendum - like you did the first?. I find this bizarre considering none of the pro-yes prerequisites for victory have been achieved, i.e. demographic shifts (i.e in Nat speak - waiting for the old folk to die off), an actual viable currency position (with no debt abandonment threats), oil at least over $100 a barrel and a national media/broadcaster amenable to Nationalist POV.

    I don't doubt it might closer than in 2014, but you are not over 50% in any polling on the indy question, so to any objective assessment it seems a very reckless gamble with the SNP's current prestige. Consider that Sturgeon may have to resign if she loses - so really cant see her fathom that prospect so soon after her accession to power. I would wager she will want at least 2 terms of office before she will consider it.

    Also, the UK can just throw the bone of real home rule, FFA or whatever in the last days of the second campaign - you have nothing against this weapon and its potential to swing voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one has ever pre-supposed anything here. This is an analytical site looking at polling reports. If anything the main author has been close to the bone with the truth (to many readers disappointment).

      Delete
    2. But Tory Dave is about to set a precedent for irefs in the UK which would guarantee a Yes in a future referendum. He believes only 'Scottish' people (e.g. Scottish born) should make such an important decision, with immigrants from other UK union countries excluded.

      ;-)

      Delete
    3. On another note, there is a hint of irony in what you just wrote. You presuppose we would lose another referendum.....

      Delete
    4. @Scottishskier. Ha ha, well yeah but do we really want to go down that road? I for one prefer the all inclusive majority :-)

      Delete
    5. And it would make the campaign appear slightly racist. We need to be as clean as can be.

      Delete
    6. I am concerned that these post referendum surveys are designed to create a response. It is just what the MSM would want!

      Delete
    7. @ Scottish Skier @ anonymous 9:58

      No, not really. I consider myself to be a Scottish Nationalist and a European Unionist. Native Yes and overall No was what I predicted in 2013; so I'm gritting my teeth to some extent on this question. I don't like the result but accept it was probably the most appropriate course of action.

      Every non native Scot I know personally voted No (a dozen or so assorted rUK, EU, and Canadians) and most said if they didn't like the result they would simply leave. Not exactly the level of commitment that I would prefer to see in those deciding the country's future.

      However if the situation eventually reaches the "F&£# It we're offski" stage due to Brexit or some such what then?




      Delete
    8. "And it would make the campaign appear slightly racist [only ethnic 'natives' can vote]. We need to be as clean as can be."

      Aye, the UK EUref certainly is that. I'm for future Scottish irefs following the 2014 franchise obviously.

      @Andrew
      Lots of 'non-native Scots' I know voted Yes. Admittedly, most of them are EU rather than rUK. Such is the nature of straw polls of the company we keep.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous,

      The presupposition of the yes campaign losing again is evidence based - the contrary opinion is just that, opinion.

      Also, as the party seeking a new response to a question just asked and answered in the negative - it would appear the burden of proof (of presupposed victory) rests rather heavily on the yes campaign and its advocates.

      Also, it would appear logical that if the second hypothetical plebiscite is restricted to 'Scottish born' - it would be illogical to exclude expatriate Scots or at the very least, natural born Scots living in rUK.

      I also happen to think the UK will vote to remain part of the EU - so the discussion about it being a material change prompting another ref remains - in all probability - academic. ;-)

      Delete
    10. Evidence based, oh really? The No campaign has never really stopped. There has been continuous anti-scottish coverage since September. In the very first Ashcroft survey, 20% + said their first reason for voting No, was the offer of more powers. Any survey after that, given the MSM agenda is irrelevant when it comes to why people voted the way they did. However, for arguments sake the BBCs survey this year found around 5% based it on that. It's not really clear cut evidence of a future No vote, is it now Scot Brit?

      In addition, a yes campaign armed with the evidence that all in the public can see now, of betrayal, lies and deceit is going to be a much more powerful force than the last. On top of this, you have the blatantly obvious democratic deficit that is the Tory majority. Moreover, you have the back track on the FFA promise. Put it this way Unionist politicians are not trusted. The evidence is clear to see and the public are even more switched on than they have been before. Who exactly is going to fall for the promise of home rule again?

      Delete
    11. Here's another thought for you. The SNP put in their manifesto a "promise of another referendum on independence, if the UK Government does not deliver on their pre-referendum promise". That wins in more than one way for us Nats.

      Delete
  5. The more glaring democratic deficit is the SNP on 50% of the vote and 95% of the seats. Scotland vacated its right to complain about the make up of the UK gov when it voted for a party with no chance of forming it, imho.

    Who is back tracking on FFA? When last I looked, it appeared to be...the SNP. 18 months to implement indy - 5+ years to implement FFA? Seriously?

    Almost or at least half of Scotland does not believe a thing the SNP says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Scotland vacated its right to complain about the make up of the UK gov when it voted for a party with no chance of forming it, imho."

      You gotta love unionist logic. Voting for a non-London party is tantamount to abstention.

      It's exactly that sort of contempt for the electorate that has got you guys into the almighty mess you're in.

      Delete
    2. ScotBrit2014,

      The more glaring deficit is possibly UKIP's representation.

      Frankly, I would be happy - SNP member and all that that implies - that the GE had been on the deHont formulae.

      Last time I looked, we lost a referendum.

      I would happily go for a 'hard crash', a UDI of a sorts, for we are already in a position that Thatcher thought was impossible. It was said back then that a majority of independence minded MP's made an end of this Union. Things have changed.

      Now it is, and rightly so, a majority of the electorate in Scotland.

      I doubt you are right in your assumptions about numbers willing to make the break or, at least, to be persuaded. The Unionist side of the arguement is divided and incredibly weak. Apart from the mantra - "SNP BAD" - which you seem to echo, I do not see a hand full of aces.

      I'll see your David Cameron and raise you a Nichola Sturgeon.

      The contemptible Alec Massie piece is just another nail in a coffin. Fortune has it, almost no-one beyond political anoraks will read it or care about the views of a metropolitan elitist with an agenda that cuts across what around 50%+ Scots seem to believe. The numbers are rising. That is the tide you are trying to push back with your ScotBrit2014 nonsense.

      Delete
    3. There is nothing undemocratic about it. The SNP got 50% the other parties had to share the remainder between themselves. Voter geography did the rest. Incidentally this is how Scottish labour kept itself in power here for more than 50 years. Don't recall anyone saying boo about it then.

      Also - if you are saying Scotland can safely be ignored and marginalised because it did not vote the way the UK wants? What exactly is that saying about the union? We can only be part of it if we vote for the Scottish branch of a London party? that's not democracy. that's bullshit.

      Almost or least half Scotland does not believe a thing the SNP say. Really?
      in 2010 the SNP share of the vote was under 20%. Going by your logic Mr ScotBrit, that meant that 80% did not believe in the SNP. Look at them now and realise that you are wasting your time. Your whining, your carping, your snide asides and your smears. All the shit and hate you could throw at us. What did it get you? It got you nothing. But it gave the SNP 50% of the vote. At some point the other shoe has to drop and folk like you will realise that spitting at people will not win arguments. As Mr Kelly as said, this is exactly the sort of nonsense that got you beaten in the general election.

      You want Scotland to start backing London parties, then get your heads out of your collective backside, grow up and give a reason to trust you.

      Delete
    4. I stand by my argument: "Scotland vacated its right to complain about the make up of the UK gov when it voted for a party with no chance of forming it, imho."

      The point is if Scotland refuses to vote for a UK wide party then it chooses to have no say in government. FACT. So tough luck. You either vote for the same party that England does or you have no say. Put up or shut up.

      Delete
    5. That argument is utter mince. How, exactly, does that work in Northern Ireland? As far as I can see, the only 'UK wide party' is UKIP. None of the rest stand in NI (though some have affiliated sister parties).

      Delete
    6. "You either vote for the same party that England does or you have no say. Put up or shut up."

      Thankyou for explaining dictatorship to us. What I'm less clear on is why you support it?

      Delete
    7. Why is it a dictatorship? It's a rational explanation of how the UK system works. Are you saying the UK is a dictatorship?

      Delete
    8. This is not the ScotBrit2014 that posted originally - it is someone else. You can see the syntax is that of a nat - 'You either vote for the same party that England does'

      You will see my handle had links to twitter.com as URL on the ScotBrit2014 - he/she/it - does not.

      Pretty sad if you ask me - but not all that surprising.

      Delete
    9. Wait, what?.. the syntax 'You either vote for the same party that England does' is that of a Nat?

      Eh? How do you work that out? Maybe you could assume that the statement is that of a non-English person, but that of a nat? Can we assume your real name is actually EnglishBrit2014 then?

      Delete
    10. It seems pretty straightforward to workout that on on a pro-snp/yes/indy site - it would be a nat impostering a unionist...

      Your other comments are incomprehensible 'anonymous' - a product perhaps of 8 years of SNP education?

      Delete
    11. Since I tend to take what people say at face value unless I'm given a reason not to I'll accept that ScotBrit2014 is not ScotBrit2014. I'd also take his/her point about syntax as it distinctly reminds me of some nasty nats that I've had the misfortune to encounter. These could be referred to as BritNats or more precisely the Loyalist subset of unionism.

      Delete
    12. The Real ScotBrit2014June 4, 2015 at 2:58 AM

      It has just been brought to my attention that no fewer than three Cybernats have been posing as my good self on this thread. Please IGNORE everything that has been attributed to me until now. This is my very first post on this blog. You can tell it's the real me from the unionist purity of my grammar.

      Delete
    13. @ScotBrit2014 (the real one) Fair enough.

      "Scotland vacated its right to complain about the make up of the UK gov when it voted for a party with no chance of forming it, imho."

      Your words, right?

      Still mince. You are saying everybody except Tory voters vacated their right to complain, as, in retrospect, even Labour had no chance of forming the UK government.

      Delete
  6. I would agree with you on that one, FPTP is outdated and undemocratic. However, that is besides the point the Tory party does not have a mandate to govern Scotland, you can't disagree with that.

    In regards to back tracking, I don't think you looked hard enough, if at all. There were plenty of press releases where Sturgeon et al defended FFA. Have you ever thought that they might want to delay that, or talk of it, as it helps their cause?

    The SNP and their leader's trust ratings are much higher than any other party. On certain areas they've more than half the trust. I'm not sure what you are referring to by what they are saying that is not believed? If you are referring to the referendum and their arguments for independence, people not believing them doesn't mean it's not true. Mcdougal agreed that fear was the only way they could win. It is also likely that your statement is incorrect due to that i.e. people may have been too scared to vote yes. Additionally, people may be happy with the SNP but stubbornly won't change their voting habits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On anything other than a FPTP system the Tories have no right to rule whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. No right to rule alone, certainly. However, the Tories plus UKIP have just under 50% of the UK-wide vote. That would almost certainly give them a combined majority under most forms of PR, and for sure if they enlisted the DUP.

      Delete
    3. I'm afraid that, following the NO vote last September, the tories do have a mandate to rule over us. Probably more so now than before the referendum. We made our choice. Perhaps many people did not fully consider the awful implications of five years of Tory majority rule when they put their cross in the NO box. Too late now.

      Delete
    4. Agree with that too. Unless we decides to go for independence, the Tories have a perfectly sound mandate to govern Scotland.

      Delete
    5. There has been an election since September - and Scotland gave a clear mandate to a party proposing that only foreign affairs and defence should be controlled by Westminster (after a transitional period)

      Delete
    6. What's a transitional period? 300 years?

      Delete
  7. It appears that highlighting the twats who were censoring dissent on Facebook has resulted in some hilariously Pouter like trolling from some very dim BritNats.

    Evidence based trolling though. You know, the kind usually accompanied by fantasy percentage tables and coloured wheels.

    *chortle* ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "that doesn't mean her logic for putting it forward can be faulted."

    Couldn't you dream up all sorts of equally plausible 'veto' scenarios - such as, for example, that at least 50% of both men and women would have to vote for 'OUT' for it to be valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not aware of any country that has gender-based double majorities, but there are any number of federal countries that have geographical double majorities of the sort Nicola Sturgeon is proposing. In Switzerland, a majority of cantons have to vote in favour for a change to the status quo to take effect.

      Delete
    2. But the UK isn't a federation, and voters knew it wasn't going to become one when they decided to keep us in this mess last September.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Sure, but the UK is not a federal country. Maybe it should become one, but that is not how it is currently constituted. (there are also federal countries that as far as I know do not have such a geographical-based veto system for nationwide referenda, such as the US, or others which have a less restrictive version of the system Sturgeon is proposing, such as Australia).

      Moreover, since the principal argument in your post was against Huw Edwards, on the grounds that to state that something has never happened before is not sufficient reason to deem that it shouldn't happen, I'm not sure that for you to go on simply to say that no country has ever instituted a gender-based double majority is by itself sufficient reason to rule one out.

      Delete
    5. "Moreover, since the principal argument in your post was against Huw Edwards, on the grounds that to state that something has never happened before is not sufficient reason to deem that it shouldn't happen"

      Er, no. My argument against Huw Edwards was based on the fact that there is very little history of referendums in the UK. There is, to put it mildly, rather a long history of referendums elsewhere, so my point about the lack of a gender-based precedent is an entirely valid one.

      A No vote last year was explicitly tied by Gordon Brown to us moving as close to a federal system as possible, so I'm baffled by the point that both you and Keaton are making. That's what people voted for.

      Delete
    6. They didn't vote for a federal system on behalf of *the whole of the UK*. They voted that the Scottish parliament be given the powers as it might get under such a federal system. It's reasonable to ask whether the three party leaders had the authority to promise what they did on behalf of the rest of the UK at such notice, but we'll not go into all that again. In any case, no-one ever voted for Northern Ireland to be given an explicit veto over Great Britain leaving the EU, and it would look rather undemocratic for it to get one, as others have said.

      Delete
    7. Northern Ireland looks like a thin excuse. The point is that voters last September did not endorse a system that would fail to treat Scotland as a distinct nation or unit.

      Delete
  9. Pete Wishart tweeted that if the SNP accepted 'Lordships', it would have around 100 in the House of Lords, making it almost unworkable.
    I had never considered there would be that many. If they were in place to bring an end to the H of Ls, and with that purpose, it could be worthwhile.
    In the past I have never considered SNP for the Lords and was completely against it, totally.
    I want to bring the Lords to an end, not even replacing it with the equally false democracy senate that Tories and about talked about.
    But with a clear plan and only with a crisp agenda, worth a consideration.
    When Mr Kelly raised it in a previous posting I was up in arms at the suggestion, but when I saw the number SNP could have, as long as the purpose of bringing down the H of Ls, possibilities suddenly jumped up at me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would they go about bringing down the Lords?

      Delete
    2. For lighthearted mischief may I suggest an overly enthusiastic fireworks display held in the first week of November ��

      Not sure how 100 extra SNP lords out of 800 or 900 could bring it down but it would be enough to make things difficult if they went for destructive tactics. Might be able to push for some useful amendments if going for constructive tactics.

      Have to say I find the concept of inherited / appointed power or authority distasteful. Although to be fair some (few) of those who have been appointed could be said to have some merit due to being subject matter experts. Perhaps we need a different / better way of including these experts in the law making process.

      Delete
  10. If it was going to cause the House of Lords to become unworkable I'd be totally up for the SNP appointing 100 Lords. But only if they did everything they could to make it unworkable and force reform.

    Perhaps each SNP branch could elect a lord and then they agree to stand for only 5 years, that would be a bit more democratic than the current set up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But we've never done that before...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Listening to R4 "What's left?" More bl@@dy monkeys tapping keys. Commentariat babbling. No sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Any analysis on the new poll showing the Tories with a massive lead over Labour?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye. We are looking at a decade of Tory rule at least. Probably 15 years. Good chance they'll try to tear Scotland out of the EU too and strip human rights etc.

      ComRes/DailyMail poll with revised methodology to take account of voter turnout.

      CON 41%
      LAB 29%
      UKIP 10%
      LDEM 8%
      GRNS 5%
      SNP 5%

      Was that what many no voters hoped for? It's what they were obviously going to get.

      Delete
    2. Hm. I hear you, but I'm always sceptical when people get out the old crystal ball.
      Another possibility is that that awful Liz Kendall becomes Labour leader and takes Labour even further to the right, and what I will call Tory Labour wins the 2020 election against a Tory party shattered by the EU referendum.
      My assumption - which may be wrong of course - is that Labour have actually given up on Scotland and will focus on winning in England.
      I don't know who will win the next UK election, but neither does anyone else.

      Delete
    3. If Scotland keeps voting the for Scottish National Party, England will keep voting for English National Parties (Tories + UKIP). The same 'Lab-SNP' threats will be rolled out again in 2020 to frighten the home counties. Meanwhile Lab need a 12 point lead to win England alone.

      Previously, Scotland was in a situation where it could get the UK government it voted for some of the time. Now Labour have left Scotland (I agree they've likely given up), Scotland will never get the UK government it voted for...

      There's a good chance though that the union will fall apart before 2020 though due to the clash of governments. Respective national parties in office in Scotland and England is not going to save the union!

      Delete
    4. It remains to be seen if an awakened Scotland will accept five harsh years of Tory majority rule. But the idea that another five blue years will follow after that? Nope, the union in its present form just wont last that long!

      Delete
  14. Sturgeon's tactic is to clearly and unequivocally create a causus belli for another referendum if/when England vote to leave and we do not. Another referendum will be the consequence of not being listened to on the quadruple lock issue. It is sensible and clever politics. You have to lay the groundwork or you get accused of being opportunist. This way she and the SNP get to look principled.

    ReplyDelete