"What it does mean is that when that referendum does occur, it will be of a confirmatory nature, to confirm the settled decision of the people of Scotland, rather than a contested referendum campaign during which the decision is made and minds made up – rather like the devolution referendum of 1997 when there was little doubt that supporters of a Scottish parliament would win. It appears that the SNP leadership would prefer this second sort of referendum."
That's certainly very much in tune with what Andrew Wilson said during his stint as a pundit on BBC Scotland's election results programme - he suggested that there was the potential to build up an overwhelming majority for Yes, with the implication being that a referendum shouldn't be called until that happens. Now, of course, Andrew Wilson is not the leader of the SNP, and he has no current active involvement in politics. But I do worry that the SNP leadership might be wholly or partly buying into his analysis (which I believe to be deeply flawed). One of the clues is the triumphalism whenever the Tory government denies Scotland's right to self-determination or signals that powers will be stripped from the Scottish Parliament - senior figures within the SNP are always quick to gloat that this will simply further build support for independence, which leads me to suspect that they're trying to replicate the strategy of the devolution campaign in the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, the Tory government kept saying "no", support for devolution kept getting higher, and eventually the dam burst and a Scottish Parliament was set up with a massive mandate from the electorate. But there are two crucial differences between then and now -
1) I'm struggling to see any evidence at all that there is the potential for anything more than a relatively modest majority for independence. Even the tremendous shock of the UK-wide Leave vote in 2016 only pushed Yes support into the low 50s. If Brexit proves to be truly disastrous, I can just about imagine the odd poll showing Yes at 60%, but I think sustained support at that level is highly unlikely, and to be honest the idea that we'll have the 3-1 majority that the devolution campaign managed is for the birds. If that's what we're waiting for, it's tantamount to giving up on independence completely.
2) In the 80s and 90s, one of the two main London parties was committed to delivering devolution, so all we had to do was wait until the pendulum in English politics swung back to Labour - although admittedly there were times when we wondered whether that would ever happen. The current situation is much less favourable. The balance of probability is that the Tories will win the 2024 election and that there will be no so-called "legal" route to a referendum until 2029 at the earliest. But even if Labour upset the odds and win in 2024, it's by no means clear that the obstacles to a referendum will magically disappear. Let's suppose that Andrew Wilson is right and I'm wrong, and that holding off for years will somehow produce a big Yes lead in the polls. Even if that's the case, it's absolutely no use to us unless there's some kind of credible strategy for circumventing the Westminster veto sooner or later. I would hope Nicola Sturgeon doesn't want to end her career as "the leader who polls suggested would have won Scotland its independence if only she'd been allowed to hold a referendum" - that's not much of an accolade at all.
As Wee Ginger Dug points out, there is growing disquiet in the Yes movement that the SNP leadership is perhaps not being entirely straight with us and might intend to let matters drift. That could lead to some people defecting to fringe pro-indy parties with a more radical offer, and that in turn could cost us the pro-independence majority at Holyrood next year, because those fringe parties have little or no chance of winning any seats. We mustn't allow that to happen. If there's a battle over strategy to be won, it can only be won inside the SNP. Leaving the party will simply clear the pitch for those who want to keep kicking independence into the long grass.
* * *
Meanwhile, Robin McAlpine has written one of his trademark provocative pieces in which he compares the SNP's promises of an independence referendum this year with the mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I don't disagree with all of it, but I do think Robin overreaches massively in some of his specific points. It's absolutely ludicrous to see an independence supporter echo John Rentoul's claim that the SNP winning 45% of the vote and 80% of the seats isn't really a mandate at all. Frankly, if you take a look at how other leading parties in Western Europe fare in multi-party systems, it's fair to say that the SNP's performance last month was close to 'beyond wildest dreams' territory, and anyone who seriously disputes that has lost the plot somewhat.
It's of course a monumental red herring to suggest that the 46% combined vote for pro-independence parties means that we've made no progress since the 45% Yes vote in the 2014 referendum. A general election is not a referendum, and we know that a significant minority of the rump Labour vote would back Yes in a second indyref. Labour even took conscious steps to retain the support of those people by indicating that they would not block a referendum indefinitely if the Scottish Parliament votes to hold one.
My impression is that Robin is constantly casting around for reasons to suggest that the SNP aren't doing well enough electorally. I seem to remember at one point last year he claimed that no poll for years had shown that we were on track to retain the pro-indy majority in 2021. That wasn't strictly true either, but he's on even weaker ground with his claim that a landslide Westminster election victory isn't sufficient.
As for Robin's suggestion that the SNP shouldn't horde independence supporters, and that more good would be done if Yessers join Labour and the Lib Dems and transform those parties into pro-independence parties...well, that sounds very seductive until you think it through. It's hard to see how that would ever happen organically - there would have to be a directed strategy behind it, and it's pretty likely that Labour and the Lib Dems would quickly get wind of what's going on and take decisive action against 'entryism'.
* * *
Like many of you (most of you?) I was on the march for independence in Glasgow yesterday. I recorded a few short videos, and if they've turned out all right I might post them on my YouTube channel over the coming days.
In fairness, there hasn't been a formal reply to the scetion 30 request as yet. It seems fair to give the SNP a chance to respond to the the formal declination. The content of the response may shape how the SNP responds.
ReplyDeleteThey don't need a response. A majority of Scots voted for independence in 2014 and an even larger majority of Scots will vote for independence in any future vote. Why are they trying to persuade the english in Scotland to vote against themselves?
DeleteWe all know that Scotland has a multi-Billion pound budget surplus while ngland is a debt ridden Hell-hole. So why would any significant proportion of the english in Scotland vote to make Scotland better and destroy their beloved homeland? It just isn't going to happen.
At the current rates of english immigration it will only be perhaps 10 years before their numbers combined with the nobaggers could prevent independence even if actual Scots voted Yes by 75-25, and independence will never happen.
There's more than one reason why our colonial occupiers are happy for madmentalnicky to delay any vote.
I like that you refer to "madmentalnicky" when your own output is so obviously disordered.
DeleteIt's true that support for independence hasn't sprung decisively upwards since 2016,but we have yet to see the effects of GE2019, an actual Brexit and prospect of 5-10 years of Tory rule.
ReplyDeleteIf we had some polls it might be clearer if there is any material shift or new momentum.
Yesterday's march was a massive reinforcement of support for Indy, and I know quite a few previous No voters who came on the march. However we need much more support from both the SNP and Greens to get wider visibility - maybe they have reasons for prominent figures (leaders) not being at the front of the march, but a well timed (and maybe slightly contentious) press release following the march would help keep momentum, and spirits up.
ReplyDeleteI think John Swinney was there, wasn't he? The Deputy First Minister is a pretty decent endorsement.
DeleteI saw John Swinney and Keith Brown at the march, and I've read that Humza Yousef was there.
DeleteTommy Sheppard, Pete Wishart, Philippa Whitford, as well as others noted in the article in the National.
DeleteI think Scottish nationalists need to accept that until a majority of Scots want independence, and Westminster acknowledge this, it's not happening.
ReplyDeleteA minority of people stamping their feet, tweeting and going on marches in the rain isn't going to change that. And it's not going to change the minds of people who disagree with you.
Basically, you can't have what you want.
It's highly likely that there was already a majority before the GE as per my below post.
DeleteThe whole of the political debate since 2014 is based on the acceptance in your first sentence. So, campaigning and activism was never intending to change that.
DeleteThe march was a massive showing of support, and there is a feeling that the tide is turning, or may already have turned.
It seems to have some people rattled... to the extent that people bother to make postings on sites like this saying things like what you said. You are not going to change any minds doing so, but you still do it!
My above post was replying to Anonymous at 9.41.
DeleteIf there was a majority for independence before the general election it's odd that the SNP only polled 45%.
DeleteExcept the average Yes (ex DK) was 49% for 2019, with average SNP just over 40%.
DeleteYes is cross party. ~1/3 of Labour voters back indy for example.
DeleteAnd then you have an actual, real poll that polls support for unionist parties higher.
DeleteBrexit, Johnson. It's made no difference. Most Scots still don't want independence.
A majority of Scots voted yes in 2014. An army of english voted no.
DeleteHow many of the english students who voted no are even still in Scotland?
How many of the english oldiers stationed in Scotland to enable them to vote are still here?
How many of the EU citizens who voted no are still here?
Without the Eu immigrant vote the no majority was down fro 400,000 to 40,000.
Scotland voted Yes. But for some reason we are the only country in the World to allow our colonists to vote to prevent freedom.
Shame none of those giving tear-stained eulogies for Alastair Gray bothered to listen to him.
Anon-who-keeps-suggesting-that-45%-for-the-SNP-means-only-45%-support-independence: that point is not only wrong, it's stupidly wrong, and it's directly addressed in the blogpost you're purportedly replying to.
Delete"Most Scots still don't want independence"
DeleteThis is a lie made by a liar.
We don't know what current support for independence is, only liars would purport this to be the case. Lying costs people elections.
We have not had poll for over a month. The last one, pre-GE, was 49% Yes and it underestimated SNP share by 3% so may have underestimated Yes too. We shall see when new polls emerge.
I can truthfully say I don't know what the current level of support is. I can only speculate. That's because I'm honest and not a liar.
Definitely the English vote was low for independence, and high for independence with the people indigenous to Scotland, by and large. As an English ( ex actually I am now a Scot!) after thirty years in Scotland, my vote was for independence, why would anyone vote to keep their adopted country shackled to a bullying neighbour having had to put up with it for 300 years?
DeleteI did though have too many Scottish friends and most of our neighbours voted to stick with the 'status quo'. Some have changed their minds now to be sure, but some not. Most English friends voted yes!
The EU voters were terrified of being thrown out because of the lies told in the disgusting so called media, that they would not be able to stay in an independent Scotland because they would be chucked out of the EU. ( we all know that Scotland does have immigration powers within the union!)
Look at how that turned out.
The young vote was good, and we need them to have the vote next time as well as any EU citz actually left in Scotland and we can be sure the Britnats are hoping most will have left or, they will chuck them out of Scotland. You could hardly make it up really, another country telling your country who can and can't stay, it's bananas!
The one thing from last time was English second home owners, driving up to vote, you see them in all elections as well, Edinburgh gets much busier with those big chavvy cars they drive around in and it was the same in the Dec GE.
When out canvassing during the 2016 Scottish election there were loads of English students who were adamant they'd vote no in another indy ref and certianly were not SNP! Should students maybe just vote in their home towns and cities because otherwise, it's a tad undemocratic when not actually domiciled permanently in Scotland!
Another things was especially in student areas there were names on the register who definitely did not live at the properties, so either ex students or their landlords which is most likely! Many of the landlords will not live in Scotland! Do they turn up to vote or use a postal vote?
Just a thought we need to be very wary and adamant only permanent residents can vote next time.
Is that a reasonable opinion?
Hetty, seem to have lost my log-in here.
A wee reminder that the polls underestimated SNP share by 3-4%. Not a single poll got it right. Even those at the upper end of the 38%-44% range were still out, and they were very stable for many months in advance. This strongly suggests that there was a consistent weighting problem; I proposed the (re)use of previously discredited Westminster past vote weighting.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it means Yes may have already been ahead consistently by a small margin before the Tory landslide and confirmation England was going to force brexit on everyone.
The longer we go on without some indy polls, the more this suggests these don't favour the union. We can be absolutely sure that if No was still ahead, we'd have had a poll by now; it's a month since the GE.
Indy polls which showed Yes in the lead were uncomfortable for No before; now they are a disaster. If polls show Yes in majority, the last pathetic excuse to put off a referendum the unionists still have, i.e. 'But Scots support the union according to polls / we said No and still Mean No!', vanishes.
We just need to get round the table. No argy bargy and no funny jargo. I'd like to see Scarlett Moffit in the chair sorting out the arguers.
DeleteWell, there is nothing to stop an indy-supporting organisation to test the waters and fund an opinion poll. If the results were released, the media would have to cover it.
DeleteI suspect that if an opinion poll did show a majority for YES, the establishment would spring into action and suddenly dig out a poll that they had rushed, or previously commisioned, showing that nah, things are much the same.
They always do. Sure as night follows day. Opnion polls were weaponised long ago. :)
Wrong. There was little Scotland only polling for the general election. STV'S poll for late November was only 1% out from the actual result of 45%.
ReplyDeleteFamiliar number that.
Why are you quibbling about GE percentages? It you wish to persuade people to vote for the Union, better to make the positive case for it, rather than the case for denying a vote on it!
DeleteIf the polls were accurate, the average would have been 45%. It was 42%.
Deletehttps://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-be-likely-to-vote-in-a-uk-general-election-asked-since-2017-gener/#line
Not one poll was higher than the actual result, the range was 38%-44%, so out at and beyond max MoE.
If I was a unionist, I would be very, very apprehensive about indy polls. As Westminster past vote now matches 2016 past vote again, they should be more accurate, with the previous underestimation corrected.
DeleteThat and the Tory English landslide + confirmation of brexit will be having its own influence.
Nobody needs to persuade anybody to vote either way. There's been a referendum and there's no sign of another one any time soon.
DeleteThe current Scottish electorate have never voted in an independence referendum.
DeleteI fully support unionists not bothering to try and persuade people to vote for the union.
I have voted in three independence elections since 1975.
DeleteYou are not the current electorate GWC, but just one voter.
DeleteThere are at least 650k voters in Scotland who were not resident here or were too young to vote in 2014.
Electorates change continuously. It's why we must consult with them very regularly. If someone voted No then promptly died straight afterwards, their 2014 No vote does not get reallocated to a someone who turned of voting age on the same day, rather obviously.
So, the current Scottish electorate have never voted in an indyref. Some individuals have, but not the electorate as a whole.
Absurd. The electorate changed the day after the referendum but I'm quite sure you wouldn't have insisted on a second one on that basis had Yes won.
DeleteIt's you that's a bit thick it seems. What I describe is the fundamental basis of democracy (that and people are allowed to change their minds). No electorate - or government that they elect - is bound by the decisions of a previous one.
DeleteThis is why democracies always legally enforce that the people must be consulted again on national governance within a time limited period, normally 4-5 years, but that they can be consulted at any time earlier if that is their desire.
The day after 2014, the electorate were entitled to vote again in a new referendum if they desired. However, we might speculate that the result would have been largely the same as the electorate would have not changed very much.
Here we are into our 6th year since the indyref and ~16% of the electorate are new voters not present in 2014. Hence you can appreciate why 4-5 years is normally enforced as the max period that can pass before people must vote again in elections, including those where they decide to hold referendums.
Democracy does not require the constant polling of individual opinion. We don't have direct democracy. Repeating referendums until you get the result you want like a roulette wheel is not democracy and were not 'entitiled' to demand plebescites as a political tool.
DeleteI get it, you don't like the result of the independence referendum. And you won't like the result of any future ones you lost.
A consequence of losing in 2014 was Scotland confirming its place in the UK. A consequence of that is that Westminster gets to decide if and when there is another referendum.
But please, carry on with your insults, face paints and marching in the rain, because it's simply not working.
This topic shows is another example of how racist towards Scots many Brits/English are.
DeleteThere is actually supposed to be a fixed 5 year term for the English / British parliament. Yet here were are having had 3 such elections in the space of only 5 years.
So, it seems the English can change their minds as often as they like and vote whenever they please, but Scots have to wait a generation?
= Anti-Scottish racist hatred
Its...almost as if referendums on constitutional change and general elections are different kings.
DeleteThe fixed terms parliament act being racist against Scots is funny though. Thank you.
Things, not kings.
DeletePlease explain the difference for us mere mortals.
DeleteMaybe there's some internationally accepted law on referendums and the time period that must exist between these that we're all unaware of, but you are familiar with?
DeleteI just searched for 'minimum time period between referendums' and all I got was stuff about how a 2nd brexit referendum could be held immediately if the English/British parliament voted for it; only time required would be that needed to organise it.
DeleteYou want me to explain the difference between direct and representative democracy to you?
DeleteThere is no minimum time period between referendums. We could have one every day if so legislated. But it hasn't been and it's up to Westminster if and when there is another one.
Skier I am one of the electorate who will shaft you Nat sis if unlikely as it may be another referendum happens. Anyhow you are not Scottish and will be deported after 31 January 2020. I will put your Mrs up if you want.
DeleteAnonymous speaks for the desperate Britnats who KNOW that support for independence has gone up hugely and that in fcat many people are moving to Scotland to escape dystopian Brexit ( Engexit) England and now they know much more about why Scotland wants and needs independence, they will mostly all vote yes.
DeleteThe Anon typo up thread about 'kings' seems somewhat apt though doesn't it!
Oh and don't Switzerland have loads of referendums because they do actually consult the actual people on important matters even if that means they have to think about it, you know, like people should be doing! Thinking. It seems to work all fine so why should Scotland wait 25/30 years to consult their own population on crucially important matters like being able to decide who governs them and makes decisions on their behalf and in their interests it's called democracy Anonymous! Do some reading on the subjecty won't you.
Hetty, not hiding behind an anon like some others here...
To make the SNP electorally successful took several dacades of thankless work by many people whose names we will never know. That doesn't mean the SNP can't be replaced, it means the opposite.
ReplyDeleteBecause we (we're pensioners now) also constructed the present political atmosphere: the constitution was never an issue, now it is the only issue. If the SNP thinks that it can fall into the same comfortably remunerated dwam* as Labour, they are wrong.
The heather is a lot easier set on fire than it used to be.
*Good Scots word
There's a story in the National website which lists senior SNP folk at yesterday's march.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/18154179.auob-independence-march-top-scottish-figures-attended/
A guid number o SNP MPs/MSPs were there.
DeleteGreat to see Tommy Sheppard MP wi the joint Rangers/Celtic fans for YES banner.
Fantastic 80,000 turnout in midwinter.
If the British establishment thinks it can just wait it out and all will return to normal,then they don't know or understand Scotland.
But then we knew that didn't we!
I find the debate among indy supporters to be more and more confusing. We have so many different voices, pushing their own agendas. Some are easy to identify, such as Robin McAlpine, who wants to manoeuvre before independence to ensure that indy Scotland is a left-leaning social democracy. I agree with his ultimate aims, but disagree entirely with his tactics.
ReplyDeleteSome, like Solidarity are (IMO) climbing on the indy bandwagon, in an attempt to gain electorally, hence their disgraceful campaign in 2016 to pinch SNP regional votes.
Some, like Stu Campbell, are just brazenly trying to get their arses into a seat in Holyrood. Enough said about him!
My views are much more aligned with Paul Kavanaugh and James Kelly, but what is missing is any clear direction, depending on events coming up in the next few months. It is almost 100% certain that Mad Boris is going to formally reject the section 30 order request that the SG submitted to Downing Street.
Like James, I reject the idea of giving up on the SNP, at least until they demonstrate that they are definitely not going to take the decisive step of either running a court-sanctioned (timely) referendum, or turning the 2021 election into a plebiscite on independence. THEN, we can start talking about a "new" indy party, which should NOT be a vehicle for egotistical maniacs like Stu Campbell.
IMO, we need to be raising hell at our SNP constituency meetings, sending letters to the SNP leadership not to "piss about" in the courts, taking months or years in a (possibly) vain attempt to run a referendum, which the unionists would simply boycott anyway, but to actively talk (in public) about turning the 2021 election into a plebiscite on independence.
Both the Greens' and the SNP's manifesto should be one sentence long .... "A vote for the Green (Scottish National Party) is a vote authorising the Scottish government to recall all SNP MP's from Westminster and IMMEDIATELY inform the UK government, that Scotland will declare independence from the UK, with or without negotiations with the rUK government as to the division of assets and liabilities of both countries".
The prospect of such an election, (which the unionists would HAVE to fight), will change the tone of our discussions with our neighbours and friends, turning it from vaguely talking about a somewhat theoretical event in the future, into a more immediate substantive discussion of the case for independence.
Amongst all the talk about parliamentary methods, routes to independence etc, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we still need to carry a majority with us, and making the issue of independence more immediate will greatly help ...... if we believe that independence is best for Scotland!
Last thing. Anyone who talks about UDI without a plebiscite having proved a majority of Scots are pro-indy, is an anti-democratic nutter, and should be avoided. These people are dangerous.
The prospect of such an election, (which the unionists would HAVE to fight), will change the tone of our discussions with our neighbours and friends, turning it from vaguely talking about a somewhat theoretical event in the future, into a more immediate substantive discussion of the case for independence.
DeleteI think it's a good idea in some ways, but I've never understood the argument that an SP election, unlike a referendum, would be immune from boycott. If a low turnout can invalidate a mandate gained in a referendum (though again, I don't see any reason that it should, morally), wouldn't it do the same to a mandate from any other election?
Boycotting a Holyrood election is almost inconceivable, because it would mean no Tory MSPs for five years. They wouldn't be prepared to pay that price. In any case, even with a boycott, Holyrood elections are always Westminster-approved - they're provided for by the Scotland Act.
DeleteExactly, James.
DeleteWhy was the banner it the front of the March not more defined with it’s wording, it should have read the sovereign people of Scotland choose to govern ourselves, after all every one, England included have agreed we have that legal right to choose whom governs us, were more than halfway there when we take this position and it sends a message to the snp and Westminster we have made our choice.
ReplyDeleteI think the similarity between George W. Bushes Iraqi WMD and the SNP's referendum this year is valid. They were both engineered in order to maintain political power, at the cost of truth. The SNP are eager participants in establishment rule in both London and Edinburgh, and obviously wish to continue that.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, the SNP will continue doing the same, because it works for them - there is not going to be any change from within. The only way that they would ever consider changing their ways is if people stopped voting for them.
Anyone can make completely unsubstantiated assertions like "The SNP are eager participants in establishment rule both in London and Edinburgh, and obviously wish to continue that". That is just a cheap jibe, devoid of evidence.
DeleteWhen folk make serious allegations like that, it should be incumbent on them to provide fairly substantive evidence, but you won't, will you? Neither will you provide a meaningful alternative to what the SNP are doing. Every single person who makes this kind of snide assertion has got a motive, and you give your motive away with your last sentence, which reveals your true motive.....
I have no idea whether you are agreeing, or disagreeing. The SNP are an integral part of Westminster. They also form the Scottish government in Holyrood. It is indisputable that they are eager participants in the establishment. They are the establishment. I see no sign that they wish to change that. I even have my doubts that they want a referendum that could result in all their MP's getting sacked.
DeleteThere you go. You did it again. You asserted that the SNP leadership has no interest in upsetting the status quo - that they want a continuation of the present circumstances. That is a monstrous thing to suggest. There is as much evidence for that assertion as there is that Jeremy Corbyn has no interest in changing the relationship between the rich and the poor. That he never had any intention of nationalising the railways, or protecting the NHS.
DeleteI presume you are claiming to be a supporter of independence? OK. Then, with as much evidence as you have for YOUR assertions, I'm going to assert that you are an agent of the British Tory establishment, on a mission to cause division and strife among independence supporters.
How do YOU like being accused in that way! How do you like THEM apples?
James, I dont agree with your analysis in your point 2 about "fringe" indy parties. Leaving aside our disagreement on arithmetic, even if every day was Christmas for Colin Fox, what do you think is the max far left vote? The Greens are slightly different, but still have the image of being "tree huggers". What would worry me more is a rise in cynicism, disillusion and despair, and goodness knows where that might land us.
ReplyDeleteBut my principle disagreement is with your point 1, as like many commentators you seem to share the view that if Brexit was going to be that much of an influence it should have shown itself by now - "Even the tremendous shock of the UK-wide Leave vote in 2016 only pushed Yes support into the low 50s". I disagree, for the fact is that Brexit has not yet actually happened. All we have had so far is the prologue to this play, or the overture to the musical - the play/ musical hasn't actually started yet - and my bet is that once it does - with the effects on trade, prices and most crucially employment - then that is when Brexit will show itself and may do this in spades.
However, the particular point is that we dont yet - even now - know how Brexit will work out. There are, I would suggest, two extreme types. One would be where we leave but shadow closely the regulatory framework of the EU - maybe even with a Customs Union - so that trade can continue pretty much as is. I think we could agree that aint going to happen.
The other end of the spectrum is where we leave - at the end of this year if Johnson sticks to his guns - with no deal, or no meaningful deal. This is a much more realistic option, and much more likely to happen. All the forecasts suggest it has the capacity to do much more damage, and if that, or something like it, comes about then I would suggest we should expect support for independence to grow and to do so exponentially, in which regard the concept of "critical mass" (in Physics) is useful - that opinion does not so much change as transform. Once independence becomes not something that a particular group are arguing for, but the "norm" (think about support for the notion that we would not leave the UK had say 25 years ago). That is a total game changer, and it is at that point that the "confirmatory referendum" becomes a reality.
I take your point that in comparison with 1997 there is no London based party prepared to sponsor independence (at least not yet). But how much was the Scotland Act a function of the support of the Labour Party, and how much did it reflect Scottish public opinion? Clearly the answer is both and to argue about whether it was more one than the other is pretty sterile. In 20?? I suspect we will have to do it ourselves - ie support will have to be SO strong that it just becomes irresistible - to continue in the present way is simply impossible (which happened in Ireland a hundred years ago - though I trust we would avoid the violence).
Can we wait for this? Well with a "confirmatory referendum", the view that we should stick with the UK becomes more than a bit anachronistic and might be expected to fade away - "we did what we had to do no matter how it worked out". Arguing for independence during the campaign has the weakness that it could subsequently be proven to be wrong and be the source of future conflict. Which would you chose?
For the record, I am 67 and would much prefer my country to be independent as soon as - preferably in 2014! However, as I support the cause less for me, and more for my children and any grandchildren, I would still prefer to wait.
Robin McAlpine is a man who thinks that because he thinks everybody else does too, well they don't, the public like simple non convoluted straight forwardness so they know where they are, then they're happy
ReplyDeleteRobin McAlpine needs to take his raffia and knit it into his cappuchino latte frothy coffee somewhere else far away in the back seat of a cafe to the chattering classes of crotchet London with a book on existentialism to hand out when the conversation lulls
I think therefore I am, the phenomenology of Robin McAlpine, except he's not and the great Scottish public can well do without even five minutes of this self centered self important bore
The time is now right when the Kingdom of England is at its most vulnerable and we must politically kick them to death so they can't get up and kick us back when they recover, because if we don't Scotland has had it, they'll rip our instiutions to shreds and remove all and any power we have, and you know why, because they never wanted devolution in the first place, the Tories knew it would come to this but Tony Blair was only interested in trying to cement Labours position in the UK permanently by owning Scotland, that's the one and only reason there is a Holyrood
The Tories will return Scotland to pre devolution as quckly as they possibly can and replace it with a viceroy in the Scotland office, why on earth has anyone not noticed the size and staff that now occupy that place
The Scotland office will be the governers house colonial office and Holyrood will be full of selected Lords from various parties sucking up Scotlands wealth pretending to be a revising chamber
Not now? Wait? Are you nuts?
Having you been drinking heavily?
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51082184
ReplyDeleteAlistair Jack should look at what happened in all the other colonies when England refused them a Section 30. Let's just say things really didn't go well for the empire, and a grand total of zero ended up staying under British rule.
During the troubles, N. Ireland very peaceful and largely trouble free because people could freely vote for reunification.
I'm not sure you know what a section 30 is as you're using the term in really strange ways.
DeleteAnd you've just described northern Ireland during the troubles as 'very peaceful and trouble free'. Lmao with people like you supporting the nationalist cause the union is secure for at least another 300 years.
People are absolutely free to support the UK union, and I would never call them 'traitors or quislings' etc for that.
DeleteHowever, Alistair Jack is traitorous quisling scum if he doesn't support the right of Scots to freely self-determine their own future. The same goes for anyone who is against democracy in this way.
Certainly, pathetic shitty little wank-stains like this better sleep with one eye open if they want to take my vote off me and hold my country prisoner. My grandparents didn't fight the Nazis so that the English could do what Hitler failed to.
You're unhinged.
DeleteNo, I'm just like my grandparents who fought scum in brown shirts like Alistair Jack in WW2
DeleteI don't sleep very well. But I have drunk deeply of the pleasures of the landowning class.
DeleteBest.
A.
Alistair Jack is advocating an English PM remove the right to vote from a country of 5.4 million people after they've lost every election here for decades.
DeleteThat is unhinged, and extremely dangerous. If you dispense with the ballot box as Jack is proposing, things will not stay peaceful for long. Never in history has the freedom of a people been suppressed peacefully. Black and tans / brown shirts are invariably needed.
If you want to save the union, then a Section 30 granted immediately is the way to do it. It did the trick in 2014.
If one is refused, then Scotland will go independent in a similar way to Ireland and the other colonies, which is really not what anyone should want.
So English polls, organised by English people, using firms that are run by ex Conservative Ministers show what they want it to show, are being taken seriously?
ReplyDeleteAnd to think some people dare suggest Scottish nationalism is anti English.
DeleteDebating as a Unionist 101: if you've nothing valid to say, drop in the good old "anti-English" straw man.
DeleteYeah why do we need government at all when we can wait for newspapers to organise polls to tell us what to do, and I'm really really positive all polls are accurate and completely fairly run with all results being absolutely correct
ReplyDeleteSo let's do away with voting and let the media run everything legally instead of the way they run things now on behalf of the English government
And now the news where you are
Yeah you're right. Support for independence is actually at 65% because
DeleteWhy are no polls organised in Scotland?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Scottish Skier that the reason for the dearth of polls may be that such would be very bad news for the Unionists. English polls cannot be trusted.
I for one would happily contribute to crowdfund regular Scottish polls on Indy.
Would you? Nat si Mr Moneybags Tartan Tory middle-class fairyboy.
DeleteNae polls Nae democracy for Scotland.
ReplyDeleteSecretary of State declares the suspension of effective voting for Scots. Can they just "prorogue" a whole country?
If we're not to have our democracy then the SNP must make sure they disrupt what has become a British dictatorship.
Time to assert ourselves in the 700 year anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath.
Strange how the Scots go about their working business peacefully and are not rioting in the streets for a new Scottish land owning ruling class. The Irish PIRA murdered their fellow countrymen and women for so called independence but have now sold out to the EU fascist regime. Flag waving gets you no where but social policy does.
DeleteThis site has a lot of interesting and well considered posts and then there are GWC posts. When I was at the march yesterday and I saw the horseshit from the police horses I thought that must be what that Britnat turd GWC spouts every day. Then horror of horror is the turd actually here in Glasgow stinking the place out.
DeleteEU Secretary of state for the UK was just on the Politics Britain TV show saying he was going to recommend the EU overrule the UKGE result and declare Remain the winner, so cancelling brexit. The same would apply if leavers win any future elections for at least a generation; these will just be overruled, with only Remain policies being permitted.
DeleteNo hold on, this is all wrong, it's not the EU that's going all fascist...
My posts are well considered by me. I do not need Nat si brainwashing and encouragement. Unlike yourself I am a Brit Scot.
DeleteNaw GWC you are just an unconsidered Britnat turd.
DeleteAnd you are an English hating Jock Nat sis not worth any consideration.
DeleteThere is no such thing as a Brit Scot. There are Scots and there are Britnat turds. GWC you stink this site out so I guess that makes you a Britnat turd.
DeleteOut of curiosity, how come it was all fine that Malta voted 77% for full integration into the UK in 1956, then just 8 years later had another referendum where it completely reversed that decision and voted overwhelmingly for independence?
ReplyDeleteIf the Maltese could freely have regular constitutional referendums, it can only be anti-Scottish racist hatred behind English MPs in Westminster not offering Scots the same freedoms. The fact that NI is getting to stay in the EU (in effect) but Scotland is not allowed the same just confirms this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Maltese_United_Kingdom_integration_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Maltese_constitutional_referendum
The mask is slipping off the Britnats and their true fascist nature is slowly but surely being revealed.
ReplyDeleteScotland it doesn't matter how you vote you will do what you are told by order of the Britnat fascist party.
I hear in the grapevine that the Brexit Unionists have applied for a celebration in George Square Glasgow on 31 January 2020. No doubt the vicious nutters from the pretend Scottish Nat sis will turn up with intended violence.
ReplyDeleteReally nice to hear the comments on how people enjoyed the March, weary and wet but happy and smiling, such an inspiration to others who wish to join no matter where you are. Lol to all.
ReplyDeleteThey could have been protesting outside Holyrood to do away with food banks and insisting rich Scots foot the bill for welfare. But it was just a bunch of middle class Tartan Tory luvvies with kilts and time to spare.
Deletehttps://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18143879.scots-paid-almost-750m-income-tax-2018-19-following-snp-tax-rises/
DeleteScots estimated to have paid £750m more in income tax following SNP tax changes
SCOTS paid almost £750 million more in income tax in 2018/19 than they did the year before, officials estimate, following changes introduced by SNP ministers.
A National Audit Office report confirmed Scotland’s estimated income tax revenue was around £11.7 billion in 2018/19, compared to £10.9 billion the previous year.
The increase followed an overhaul of the tax system, with the SNP introducing two new bands and altering the higher and top rates. This meant people earning over £26,000 paid more income tax in Scotland than if they lived south of the border. Critics say this makes Scotland the highest-taxed part of the UK.
That is a red herring comment. The 26k threshold is a drop in the ocean. The rich in Scotland have been raking it in since the 2008 Bank crash. They even get a free bus pass and prescriptions. The working class in Scotland are no better of than the English under devolution. And how much of our total tax income would be handed to your masters in the EU.
DeleteErm how can higher earners get a 'free' bus pass and prescriptions? This is paid for out of the tax they pay; it's not free.
DeleteIt only starts to become 'free' to those who are paying little to no tax because they are on low incomes.
You'd have to be thick as pigshit to not understand such basic concepts.
The Scottish government only have control of income tax, so have no powers to go after those who avoid tax by other means. That needs independence.
Horseshit, pigshit GWC is just as thick as any type of shit - Britnat turd.
DeleteBoris Johnson's hopes of a trade deal with the EU have apparently hit the buffers as Ursula Von Der Leyen expresses her shock and distaste at the UK decision to deny Scotland it's legal democractic rights as outlined in the UN convention to which all European states are signatories
ReplyDeleteMrs Von Der Leyen said "while it is not normally the business of the European Union to comment on member states political business the right to self determination of any country is a fundamental tenet of democracy"
Interesting blog and much food for thought .I agree the SNP have got to be seen to challenge Westminster and stand up to them at some point .
ReplyDeleteMy own feeling is that the mood music has changed since Johnson's landslide down south There is just too much anecdotal evidence both from my own experience and of others that many soft Nos have switched .I wish I could see a poll as I suspect Yes will have moved in to low or mid 50s around the 53% or 54% mark.
I think Johnson is making a fundemental strategic error of monumental proportions .There is nothing that gets your average Scots hackles up as much as an arrogant stuck up English buffoon laying down the law to Scotland .
This an argument the Tories can't win who decides Scotland's future Boris Johnson or the Scottish Parliament? Give it time Johnson will put his foot in it and inflame the situation .
Nicola has to be brave Westminster is never ever going to agree to a referendum that they may lose .There authority has got to be challenged at some point .Its the how and the when that will be the big decision for Nicola.
I'm still full of hope that Independence is not far off
The idea of creating a new State without the backing of 47% of the population obviously has it's pit-falls, and I think that due to a dangerous combination of pride, and ego, a lot of people don't seem to consider the implications.
DeleteHave you thought through the implications of keeping Scotland in the UK against the wishes of 53% of the population? I'm guessing that perhaps you haven't. Is that because of pride, ego, or what? It's certainly very dangerous, whatever the reason.
Delete55.3% voted to remain in the UK in the 2014 referendum. 56% did not vote for the Nat sis in the 2019 GE. In the real world young James it is hardly a major topic of discussion. But do keep on with the colourful flag waving. It brings in money to Glesga.
DeleteOnly someone thick as pigshit or who wants to promote violence would not see stopping independence in the face of majority democratic support for it, however small, as very dangerous.
DeleteThere is not a single example from history where the majority will of a people has been suppressed peacefully, particularly when a larger, aggressive foreign state has been doing the suppressing.
Jeez, folk in N. Ireland overwhelmingly supported the union and were free to vote for reunification technically. Can you imagine what things would have been like if England kept it part of the UK, cancelling elections, when SF/SDLP won these and a majority backed reunification? The IRA would find themselves completely justified.
It's people like anon and Alistair Jack that get innocent people killed. Which is what happens when the ballot box is dispensed with because little wankstains can't accept it when they keep losing elections.
It utterly sickens me that after all those people died in N. Ireland, the English government is spitting on their graves by talking about occupying Scotland.
if you make peaceful revolution impossible violent revolution becomes inevitable
Deletea) Scotland isn't "new". It's been in existence for over a thousand years.
Deleteb) Ending a union with only a small majority in favour can happen fine without society breaking down. The UK is doing it just now. Most remainers now just want to get on with it. Many No voters would feel the same way.
Why are unionists not talking about this No. 1 bellwether for the economy?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51035672
Worst year for retail in 25 years, says trade body
Hence there's currently a emigration of skilled workers out of the UK. Cause and effect.
The job losses are just around the corner. Plot up unemployment vs size of the Tory majority and you'll see the direct relationship.
Fate is a funny thing. It's really something that the UK royal family is breaking up at exactly the same time the UK is doing the same.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that both are driven by English/British racism is particularly ironic.
Aye, Harry and Meghan refused a royal S30. If they had a vote and lived in Scotland it would be a double whammy.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile back at the food banks in the real world.
End of monarchy hopefully and the English/British Empire about to follow the Soviet Union into history.
Nearly 3500 were killed in the N. Irish troubles.
ReplyDeleteAnd that was with people able to freely vote for Sinn Fein and the SDLP, so bringing about reunification by peaceful democratic means.
Yet we still had the troubles because of the partitioning (which was unjustified, as the GFA is testament too). Well, can you imagine what it would have been like if most folk there had voted SF/SDLP and these had won a series of elections on a border poll ticket, yet England had cancelled election results and told them they could not vote on the matter for at least 3 decades?
Alistair Jack just went on the telly and told people violence is justified in the pursuit of political goals. That is what you support if you don't support peaceful democracy.
As long as people can freely vote at the ballot box, there is no excuse for violence. Those who remove the ballot box are pulling out the gun. That is what Alistair Jack is doing.
Skier do you Nat sis think it is proper to impose EU citizenship on Scots who do not want anything to do with that corrupt organisation?
DeleteBritnat turds like GWC do not ( or kid on ) they do not understand democracy 62% - 38%
DeleteYou don't have to take EU citizenship GWC. You can just stay British and not take a Scottish passport.
DeleteAnd an indyref forces nothing; people vote freely, unlike in the UK where voting is illegal (according to Alistair Jack anyway).
GWC Do you think it is proper to impose the House of unelected Lords or governments it didn't vote for on Scots who do not want anything to do with that corrupt organisation
ReplyDeleteMaybe when yoy favourite football team gets told that all transfers from Europe will be subject to the new English FA immigration rules of who and how many from where can come and play for your team and England gets first choice because 10 to 1 ratio will apply, or didn't they tell you yet, maybe sumdy at the lodge or doon the pub might eh
Only a fascist like Alister Jack Tory MP could think it is ok to go on TV to tell Scotland what to do. The Tories have NEVER won an election in Scotland. Of course the BBC should have asked him about his mandate to even appear to speak to tell Scotland it will never ever matter what you vote for because you won't be allowed it. Of course the BBC are British Nationalist propagandists.
ReplyDeleteI think Jack has been sent out by Johnson to test the water to see what he can get away with. What will be the reaction of the Scots.
This is not about the Irish, or any other nation that wishes to rule their own country, this is about how one half of Britain, is bullying another half of Britain, a Britain that only exists because we are supposed to be in a treaty of the union, where two kingdoms were joined together to make one Britain. The treaty of the union does not say anywhere in its written agreement that it was a takeover of Scotland, or that Scotland was to takeover England.
ReplyDeleteAnd just to make things absolutely clear, the people who signed the treaty of in Scotland, signed it in isolation from the people of Scotland, they did not ask our permission, they did not consult the people of Scotland, they did not put it to a discussion with the people of Scotland they did not put it to a vote with the people of Scotland, how legal is the treaty of the union, it would appear that a few rich Scottish people took it upon themselves to sell a country that did not belong to them at that time.
The result is that the people in Scotland have managed to retain their sovereignty no matter what England says. We stayed separate from the Treaty of the union in 1707 because England tried to sneak the treaty through without our knowledge and consent,