Scotland, Brexit & IndyRef2: Implications, considerations and similar (including impact on rail).

[Acfb]

Which one is it ? Either Scotland is turning wholeheartedly against the Union, or opinion is divided roughly 50/50 - It can't be both !

Personally I have no doubt that Scotland is fully capable of managing its affairs as a fully independent country, what I dispute is that that would lead to a wonderful land of milk, honey and free everything, because being part of the UK is the cause of all that is bad here.

Things seem remarkably stable in Scotland now to me. Pretty much consistent around 53% no 47% yes similar to last time and only the 25-34 age group is overwhelmingly pro independence. 16-24s are actually surprisingly balanced at best narrowly in favour in independence. I'm very sceptical another referendum will happen this side of 2030. Earliest it is likely to happen is 2028 and that is assuming the SNP and the Greens still have a majority after the 2026 Holyrood election.

 

[HarryL]

I'm very sceptical another referendum will happen this side of 2030. Earliest it is likely to happen is 2028 and that is assuming the SNP and the Greens still have a majority after the 2026 Holyrood election.

The SNP are aiming for one before the next Holyrood elections, whether it will happen who knows. But there will be a general election before the next Scottish one, and even as it stands right now, Labour are unlikely to win an outright majority without Scottish seats. So they could well end up needing the support of the SNP to form a government in the future, which would give a significant leverage towards a second vote if it doesn't happen before then.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Side note, but Aberdeen has a very diverse genetic makeup, Celt, Scot, English, Norse, Germanic, Polish, Flemish, French, etc etc having had very very old historic trading links with much of Europe. Aberdeen Harbor board being one of the oldest businesses in this islands history.

This conversation really has to center around the polices and not the lineage/genetics of the people.

What constitutes a modern Scot? Live/Work in Scotland, born here, or have family ties to the place, or just plain feel a Scottish affinity. Any singular or combination of these seems fine to me. Much beyond that is the blood and soil gibberish you rightly point out.

There is absolutely no guarantee the SNP survive independence or form a government in an independent Scotland. Careful examination of the internal views of the SNP quickly leads you to the conclusion that only one thing is keeping the right and left of the party together.

Indeed, I'd go as far as saying that Aberdeen and the North East is a very specific place, similar to how people from Sutherland/Caithness are different. It always struck me as a teenager in Aberdeen that we had a different culture and perspective on things than people in the Central Belt. The general Doric speaking culture is different, and I remember finding it strange that I had to speak to a friend from East Kilbride in Scottish English because we couldn't understand each other if we spoke our own language.

But yes, it's about policies, not about lineage/genetics/blood and soil rubbish. If you live in Scotland and take part in Scottish life, then you're Scottish to my eyes.

About the SNP: oh yes, very much so. I'm an SNP supporter and my family were SNP members since almost the beginning, but it's very obvious that the SNP in the current form wouldn't last for that long post-independence. I'd expect part of it to split off and join the Greens, while the pro-business part might well end up in the independent Scottish Tories. I'd even go as far as saying that post-Indy Scotland would probably have a mainstream centre-left SNP, a harder left Greens, a centre-right Scottish Tories, a "Highland and Islands" party (i.e. the Lib Dems) and probably a new nasty nationalist party formed by disgruntled opponents of independence.

If the next General Election results in Labour needing the SNP's support, then I fully expect a confidence and supply deal that involves IndyRef2 within a year. If the SNP lose a second referendum, then they would almost certainly demand Devo-Max as the price of maintaining the agreement. One big problem that Labour have is that the "Vote Labour, get SNP" argument was a very valid one in parts of England in the last two elections.

 

[GusB]

But there is only one 'ruling' party really ramping up the Scottish independence theme and that's the SNP? The very same party that was behind the unpopular restrictions over Christmas. No doubt there are other pro independence parties such as Alba that could be voted for against the clearly no longer trusted Labour, Liberal or Tories.

Leaving aside the independence issue for a moment, which party was it that proposed the referendum on devolution in the first place? It wasn't the SNP.

Like it or not, the SNP is in power in Scotland because they have been elected, and have maintained a strong position despite the fact that the system was designed so that massive majorities couldn't easily happen. The SNP didn't come along with guns and seize power one day.

They weren't always in power, either; we had a LabLib coalition to begin with. They weren't brilliant either, but they were also democratically elected. I was fairly content with the result then, and I'm fairly content with the result now because what I shoved into the ballot box(es) at the time was largely what actually happened! I'm happier knowing that my vote counts for far more under under our current electoral system than it does with the First Past the Post shambles that's used for Westminster elections.

In any case, you can't bang on about "one 'ruling' party" when the Tories are railroading stuff through Parliament on a much, much smaller share of the vote.

Yes it is. It is fanciful to suggest the Republic of Ireland would enjoin itself with Scotland, almost as much so as suggesting the Republic should become part of the UK again.


It's a significant limitation to the Scottish independence endeavour that Scotland is essentially a one-party devolved state with minimal meaningful opposition. There is only one meaningful political force in Scotland which is driving the debate. In Ireland, five major political parties right across the left-right spectrum are all pro-independence/unification, which firstly is a much broader church of pan-nationalism, and secondly means anyone voting for a United Ireland isn't necessarily voting for Fianna Fail for ever (or at least not for a significant length of time).

The first part of this is nonsense; I wouldn't want Ireland, Scotland, or any other constituent part of the UK to become a constituent part of another weird grouping of seemingly related nations just because we're not England. It's silly, and defeats the idea of independence. I appreciate that it wasn't you that suggested this in the first place, but the idea of a "Celtic Coalition" is a bit daft.

Regarding your second point, I'm slightly inclined to agree with you in that I'm not entirely happy with the whole independence movement being the preserve of one single party. I have voted SNP, mainly because a) their policies have been largely Labour-ish over the years, and b) because locally, it's SNP or Tory.

I have both voted for and been a member of the Scottish Greens; in the Scottish Parliament elections it has been constituency vote for SNP and regional vote for Green. While the Greens have solidified their views on independence, I'm losing faith in them because they're losing sight of the actual Green stuff in favour of other issues. I won't vote for Alba because, well - Alex Salmond.

I suppose I am, for the first time in a long time, in the position where I actually feel a bit politically homeless. It's not just people who lean to the left who are in favour of independence, but those who like to be in the middle and, I dare say, there are a few proper "Tartan Tories" as well. I suppose what I'm trying to say here is that the "mainstream" UK parties have to accept and embrace the fact that there is a proportion of their electorate that supports either further devolution, or outright independence.

Indeed, I'd go as far as saying that Aberdeen and the North East is a very specific place, similar to how people from Sutherland/Caithness are different. It always struck me as a teenager in Aberdeen that we had a different culture and perspective on things than people in the Central Belt. The general Doric speaking culture is different, and I remember finding it strange that I had to speak to a friend from East Kilbride in Scottish English because we couldn't understand each other if we spoke our own language.

I think this goes some way to illustrating the misunderstanding about Scotland. We're often portrayed in the media as being a homogenous people, either positively or negatively. In a political sense, Scotland is often seen as being a very industrial, working-class "Red" Labour country when that could not be further from the truth. Where I live there's very little support for Labour; they took second place in the Westminster election in 1997 and since then it has aye been a Tory/SNP fecht.

 

[oldman]

I'm happier knowing that my vote counts for far more under under our current electoral system than it does with the First Past the Post shambles that's used for Westminster elections.

I think the present FPTP/proportional hybrid is a dog's dinner.

In the early days, Labour won most FPTP seats and many Labour voters saw their second vote as a second choice (hence the brief rise of the Scottish Socialists). Now SNP voters are in the same position - so you get Alba set up explicitly to game the system to allow nationalists to vote for two nationalist parties - don't waste your vote. The Greens did well in both periods, once from Labour supporters, now from SNP.

You end up with tactical voting (once stop Labour, now stop the SNP) in the FPTP vote, and some people getting a second vote in the regional vote. Better than FPTP, but still deeply flawed.

 

[Wynd]

Just a few points of order:

There are at present four independence parties. Dismissing two or three of them as fringe or minor is to in one way or another undermine the principle of democracy that people do have choices. Sure, one is dominant, but that may well change.
It is also worth noting that Labor are being forced to stand independence candidates in the council elections, despite Sarwar saying he wouldn't, because they are so thin on numbers. Its widely reported that as much as 30% of Labour membership support independence.

The diversity of the North East goes some way to understanding why there is an appetite for independence. Scotland is indeed not homogeneous, culturally identical to the rest of the UK and the attempts to ignore and actively suppress the cultures, languages, identities, specific needs etc etc of the nation is one part of why we are having this conversation. Gaelic road signs, denigration of Scots being spoken in Holyrood this week & Lennie Pennie who does Scots word of the day, are just a few examples of the Scottish Cringe in full effect. This archaic attitude is being badly received in modern Scotland.


One other point. Scotland has now voted SNP for 3 general elections and 2 Holyrood elections since 2014. When does a government get to enact the policies it is elected on?

If it does not get to enact the policies or mandates it is voted in on, can we call that state a democracy?

This is the bind Scotland is presently in politically. Its not a question of party or even constitutional makeup at the moment. Its a question about Democracy itself. Can Scotland even have a say in its own future. Are we even "allowed" to? Many pundits, Steven Daisly being one, categorically reject the very principle of Scottish democracy.

He is not alone. We had a Lib Dem member on Debate night saying that Scotland expressing itself democratically would be a loss for liberal democracy in the western world, which is a contortion of such magnitude that one can only be left with gas-lighting as the logical conclusion for using such language.

Its eh, well, awkward to say the least.

 

[takno]

There are at present four independence parties. Dismissing two or three of them as fringe or minor is to in one way or another undermine the principle of democracy that people do have choices

I've get the SNP, Greens and Alba. Not sure what the other one is? Alba are a pretty shambolic party run by a rather concerning individual, and enjoying almost no electoral support. I don't know what to call them if not fringe.

Personally I find the Green Party rather poorly run as a party, with internal debate stifled, and policies which are peculiarly not at all focused on Green issues, but I wouldn't call them fringe as such, more disappointing.

One other point. Scotland has now voted SNP for 3 general elections and 2 Holyrood elections since 2014. When does a government get to enact the policies it is elected on?

If it does not get to enact the policies or mandates it is voted in on, can we call that state a democracy?

The SNP has taken the lion's share of Scottish seats but not the popular vote in general elections. More importantly it hasn't won the overall election either on its own or in coalition with anybody else.

They've won (or almost won) a few Holyrood elections, which has given them wide-ranging abilities to enact their policies, which they have done. We have messed up everything from the police to our energy security specifically by enacting their policies.

The fact that they have another policy in Holyrood of doing something which is outside of Holyrood's competence is just hubris from them. Westminster declining to do it is not anti-democratic in any way. If Holyrood parties were able to stand on a ticket of actually managing things which are in Holyrood's remit, rather than being a rather pathetic proxy vote for independence, then Scotland would be in a much better place right now

 

[Wynd]

I've get the SNP, Greens and Alba. Not sure what the other one is? Alba are a pretty shambolic party run by a rather concerning individual, and enjoying almost no electoral support. I don't know what to call them if not fringe.

Personally I find the Green Party rather poorly run as a party, with internal debate stifled, and policies which are peculiarly not at all focused on Green issues, but I wouldn't call them fringe as such, more disappointing.



The SNP has taken the lion's share of Scottish seats but not the popular vote in general elections. More importantly it hasn't won the overall election either on its own or in coalition with anybody else.

They've won (or almost won) a few Holyrood elections, which has given them wide-ranging abilities to enact their policies, which they have done. We have messed up everything from the police to our energy security specifically by enacting their policies.

The fact that they have another policy in Holyrood of doing something which is outside of Holyrood's competence is just hubris from them. Westminster declining to do it is not anti-democratic in any way. If Holyrood parties were able to stand on a ticket of actually managing things which are in Holyrood's remit, rather than being a rather pathetic proxy vote for independence, then Scotland would be in a much better place right now

How can you say, factually, the SNP hasn't won an election? They have won 3 GE's and 2 HR elections since 2014 alone....? Do please clarify.

One either supports parliamentary democracy or one does not.

If we look at vote share for the conservatives as one example, that figure is far below any of the thresholds achieved by the SNP in Holyrood or Westminster elections. Yet one party has their policies is enacted whereas one does not. There is an a-symmetry in this, as evidenced by the circumstances as they are.

Popular vote is not the method we use in the UK as currently constituted, so its unclear as to why this is being held up as the benchmark for some policies and not others.

In terms of competency, we cannot say this factually at present. If one reads the articles of Union, it becomes clear that what we have are two willing parties signing up to form one state. There is nothing in there about one subsuming the laws, customs and rights of the other, indeed the Act of Union explicitly protects and preserves a number of rights to both parties.

The very short way of saying this, is we don't know until its tested in court. Declaring that the constitution is reserved, and having one precedent is one thing, but the underlying principles have not been tested fully. Primarily because the Cameron Government recognized Scotland's democratic rights, and this government does not, namely, if you win, you get to enact your policies.

If we take your argument at face value, we can be forgiven for thinking that the SNP dint win and therefore don't get to enact their policies. And if they did win they should not be able to enact them anyway. This is the position of a number of Unionists, and other Unionists are finding it pretty uncomfortable. Adam Tomkins being one example. Hence why we are back to a first principles discussion about the concept of Democracy in Scotland.

Unionism is espousing the message of a Failing Scotland under the SNP, but when we examine the metrics, the evidence suggests otherwise. But, as said above, none of that is an argument promoting the Union or being against Independence.

The question of Independence is not tied to one party, rather, a decision for the citizens of Scotland.

 

[Falcon1200]

How can you say, factually, the SNP hasn't won an election?

Did they win an overall majority of seats in the current Scottish Parliament ? No they did not, so depend on the Greens to pass legislation, despite the fact that people might vote for the Greens, and indeed the SNP, for reasons other than an overriding desire for independence above anything else.

Declaring that the constitution is reserved, and having one precedent is one thing, but the underlying principles have not been tested fully.

Once the SNP finally release the legal advice they were given we will know exactly what is the situation regarding their power to hold Indyref 2. However they seem very reluctant to come clean, I wonder why that would be ?

 

[Cloud Strife]

Did they win an overall majority of seats in the current Scottish Parliament ? No they did not, so depend on the Greens to pass legislation, despite the fact that people might vote for the Greens, and indeed the SNP, for reasons other than an overriding desire for independence above anything else.

Once the SNP finally release the legal advice they were given we will know exactly what is the situation regarding their power to hold Indyref 2. However they seem very reluctant to come clean, I wonder why that would be ?

1) What matters is that pro-independence MPs hold the balance of power. It doesn't matter if it's one party or two, or even three, what matters is that a majority in the Scottish Parliament support it. That's how parliamentary democracy works, and the whole idea that you need to win a majority of votes is absurd. If we use that "majority of votes" argument, then the Tories have no mandate.

Look at Spain. The current government doesn't have a majority of seats. They rely on a hideously complicated agreement involving Catalan and Basque nationalists abstaining in the investiture votes just so Sanchez could win. Does anyone deny the legitimacy of Sanchez? No.

2) The SNP are wisely biding their time on this. When the moment is right, it's best to let an English-dominated court strike down a Scottish law. If they do that, support for independence will increase further. Support for independence is not at a critical point yet, but if it rises to 60%, it's going to be nearly impossible for any English government to stop it.

This is the position of a number of Unionists, and other Unionists are finding it pretty uncomfortable.

What remains of Labour are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the Tory-dominated rhetoric. Sarwar and Sturgeon have a good personal relationship, and Scottish Labour members aren't exactly happy at being told what to do and think by the Tories. We've seen multiple examples where the Tories have attacked Labour for having pro-independence elements, and it can only be counter productive.

In a political sense, Scotland is often seen as being a very industrial, working-class "Red" Labour country when that could not be further from the truth.

Exactly. My mother is from Ballater, and it couldn't be further from the media portrayal of Scotland. It's more like a typical genteel English village, even down to the way that they speak. Yet, drive an hour up the road to Keith, and you've suddenly got a farming community that are completely incomprehensible when they get going after a few pints. Even the fishing villages on the Moray coast are just different to the ones you find south of Aberdeen.

My grandmother was from Fife, and *she* was very much working-class Red Labour on that side of the family. She was excellent with money, she worked hard and saved well, and I think she was the personification of how Scotland is viewed by outsiders. But she was from Fife, not Aberdeen.

 

[Wynd]

Did they win an overall majority of seats in the current Scottish Parliament ? No they did not, so depend on the Greens to pass legislation, despite the fact that people might vote for the Greens, and indeed the SNP, for reasons other than an overriding desire for independence above anything else.



Once the SNP finally release the legal advice they were given we will know exactly what is the situation regarding their power to hold Indyref 2. However they seem very reluctant to come clean, I wonder why that would be ?

Holyrood is not FPTP. An overall majority has only happened once in the history of Devolution. The entire HR system is designed to prevent overall majorities. The latest HR election result, if translated to the Westminster system, would see the SNP with 552 House of Commons seats.

Said legal advice is now released approving ministers to proceed with the relevant legislation according to the times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...legal-advice-over-independence-vote-j77bcnw3b

It is unclear why anyone who would wish to call themselves a democrat would be against a government pursuing policies it has been elected to office and mandated to implement by the public.

 

[Falcon1200]

1) What matters is that pro-independence MPs hold the balance of power. It doesn't matter if it's one party or two, or even three, what matters is that a majority in the Scottish Parliament support it.

That is where we will have to disagree. The Scottish Parliament elections are purely to determine who governs Scotland, and I fully recognise the right of the party with the largest number of seats, in this case the SNP, to form the Scottish Government; If they cannot, despite Brexit et al, win a majority of seats, they also have the right, and indeed duty, to form a coalition to enable a functioning Government. But the Scottish Parliament elections are not, and despite the SNP's attempts, neither are the local Council elections, an Independence referendum. In fact was Nicola Sturgeon not recorded telling a voter that choosing the SNP was not necessarily a vote for independence ? Having won the most seats her tune quickly changed of course.

It is unclear why anyone who would wish to call themselves a democrat would be against a government pursuing policies it has been elected to office and mandated to implement by the public.

As per my simultaneous reply above ! The SNP was (nearly) elected to form the Scottish Government.

 

[Wynd]

1) What matters is that pro-independence MPs hold the balance of power. It doesn't matter if it's one party or two, or even three, what matters is that a majority in the Scottish Parliament support it. That's how parliamentary democracy works, and the whole idea that you need to win a majority of votes is absurd. If we use that "majority of votes" argument, then the Tories have no mandate.

Look at Spain. The current government doesn't have a majority of seats. They rely on a hideously complicated agreement involving Catalan and Basque nationalists abstaining in the investiture votes just so Sanchez could win. Does anyone deny the legitimacy of Sanchez? No.

2) The SNP are wisely biding their time on this. When the moment is right, it's best to let an English-dominated court strike down a Scottish law. If they do that, support for independence will increase further. Support for independence is not at a critical point yet, but if it rises to 60%, it's going to be nearly impossible for any English government to stop it.



What remains of Labour are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the Tory-dominated rhetoric. Sarwar and Sturgeon have a good personal relationship, and Scottish Labour members aren't exactly happy at being told what to do and think by the Tories. We've seen multiple examples where the Tories have attacked Labour for having pro-independence elements, and it can only be counter productive.



Exactly. My mother is from Ballater, and it couldn't be further from the media portrayal of Scotland. It's more like a typical genteel English village, even down to the way that they speak. Yet, drive an hour up the road to Keith, and you've suddenly got a farming community that are completely incomprehensible when they get going after a few pints. Even the fishing villages on the Moray coast are just different to the ones you find south of Aberdeen.

My grandmother was from Fife, and *she* was very much working-class Red Labour on that side of the family. She was excellent with money, she worked hard and saved well, and I think she was the personification of how Scotland is viewed by outsiders. But she was from Fife, not Aberdeen.

1. Precisely.
2. This is the thinking of many a learned legal mind. The testing of the Act of Union and the constitution is something that both sides of the argument view with deep caution.

Ballater is a slight anomaly in Scotland outside of parts of Edinburgh, but the point is well made.

 

[najaB]

But the Scottish Parliament elections are not, and despite the SNP's attempts, neither are the local Council elections, an Independence referendum.

Indeed, that is true. However, if the Government is formed of pro-independence parties then it's right and proper for that government to seek to hold such a referendum.

 

[Wynd]

That is where we will have to disagree. The Scottish Parliament elections are purely to determine who governs Scotland, and I fully recognise the right of the party with the largest number of seats, in this case the SNP, to form the Scottish Government; If they cannot, despite Brexit et al, win a majority of seats, they also have the right, and indeed duty, to form a coalition to enable a functioning Government. But the Scottish Parliament elections are not, and despite the SNP's attempts, neither are the local Council elections, an Independence referendum. In fact was Nicola Sturgeon not recorded telling a voter that choosing the SNP was not necessarily a vote for independence ? Having won the most seats her tune quickly changed of course.



As per my simultaneous reply above ! The SNP was (nearly) elected to form the Scottish Government.

Per above, its nigh on impossible to get a majority in Holyrood. Thats the point of the Holyrood system. You are using an artificial test to make your argument.

HR elections and WM elections are not referenda, however, they do serve as a proxy for public sentiment. This will remain the case until the constitutional question has been resolved one way or another.

Its worth repeating, that we wouldn't be discussing this, I believe, if it were not for Westminster/Whitehall's actions with Brexit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, that is true. However, if the Government is formed of pro-independence parties then it's right and proper for that government to seek to hold such a referendum.

They did not long have one. How often would you see re-polling as appropriate? It could get a bit silly.

There are other reasons to vote for the SNP than independence, not least because (while not perfect) it seems to carry less baggage of disrepute than the "English" parties.

 

[duncanp]

How can you say, factually, the SNP hasn't won an election? They have won 3 GE's and 2 HR elections since 2014 alone....? Do please clarify.

It is worth pointing out that although the SNP may have won a majority of seats (in Scotland) at the last UK general election, they only received 45% of the votes. Together with the Green Party, that means that independence supporting parties received 46% of the vote.

The corresponding percentage of the vote for independence supporting parties in the 2017 and 2015 general elections are 37.1% and 51.3% respectively.

It is worth pointing out that the SNP lost their overall majority in the 2016 Holyrood election, and failed to gain an overall majority in the election last year. Also in last year's election, unionist parties were narrowly ahead in their share of the popular vote (50.4%)

Speaking to friends in Scotland, I get the impression that opinion on the question of independence is finely balanced, with a slight majority against independence, according to the latest opinion polls.

It may well be that there is another independence referendum after the next UK general election, particularly if Labour are the largest party in a hung parliament.

However it would probably take some time to arrange the referendum, which could well take place after the next Scottish parliament election in 2026.

It has been said that the Prime Minister's unpopularity in Scotland is a factor that has increased support for independence.

But by the time the referendum takes place, it is quite likely that Boris Johnson will no longer be the leader of the (UK) Conservative Party.

So there is no guarantee that the SNP will get the result that it is hoping for.

 

[Cloud Strife]

That is where we will have to disagree. The Scottish Parliament elections are purely to determine who governs Scotland, and I fully recognise the right of the party with the largest number of seats, in this case the SNP, to form the Scottish Government; If they cannot, despite Brexit et al, win a majority of seats, they also have the right, and indeed duty, to form a coalition to enable a functioning Government. But the Scottish Parliament elections are not, and despite the SNP's attempts, neither are the local Council elections, an Independence referendum.

Of course they are not. However, the Scottish Government does not pass legislation, but the Scottish Parliament. The SNP won't get a third chance at an independence referendum, and I think even the most hardcore SNP supporter will agree with that.

The problem is that the UK Government seems to have a pathological hatred of devolution, and this is making an even stronger case for independence. The Tories could, overnight, declare that Devo-Max will be implemented with or without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and it would likely kill the case for independence for 20-30 years. They won't, because the English Tories fundamentally view Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as colonies.

No matter how you look at it, what's happening in Scotland is that a party ruling the UK Government has no mandate in Scotland to rule. Until this is resolved in some meaningful way (Devo-Max, federalism or independence), I suspect that the SNP will continue to win elections. The SNP were thought to be at their weakest in a while before the last election, yet they increased their seats, and it took a serious amount of Tory-Labour tactical voting to prevent them from winning a majority.

I entirely agree that independence right now is fuelled by the presence of people like Rees-Mogg and others who are utterly unacceptable to the Scottish public. It's not just Johnson, but the English Tories who are so completely toxic.

It may well be that there is another independence referendum after the next UK general election, particularly if Labour are the largest party in a hung parliament.

The next election is due by January 2025. Let's say Labour need the support of the SNP and Welsh/Northern Irish parties to govern. The SNP will have prepared for this eventuality, so a second referendum could be organised within 6 months. The SNP would demand it as the price of their support, and it's hard to imagine Labour refusing when the alternative could be another 5 years in opposition.

But by the time the referendum takes place, it is quite likely that Boris Johnson will no longer be the leader of the (UK) Conservative Party.

It's not just Johnson. You need to get rid of people like Rees-Mogg as well, who has considerable amounts of enemies up north. Even the Scottish Tories regard him as being pure poison, along with other more hardcore members of the Tories. It's probably worth pointing out that the SNP and Tories had quite reasonable relations up until the Brexit referendum, but May and then Johnson ruined that.

 

[Wynd]

Sentiment to cease Scotland being a dependent state is being driven only partly by the un-popularity of certian UK Gov members and officials.

That is one aspect, but is not the fundamental driver for this sentiment. It would be fair to say that Boris et all are just the icing on the cake.

It is worth pointing out that although the SNP may have won a majority of seats (in Scotland) at the last UK general election, they only received 45% of the votes. Together with the Green Party, that means that independence supporting parties received 46% of the vote.

The corresponding percentage of the vote for independence supporting parties in the 2017 and 2015 general elections are 37.1% and 51.3% respectively.

It is worth pointing out that the SNP lost their overall majority in the 2016 Holyrood election, and failed to gain an overall majority in the election last year. Also in last year's election, unionist parties were narrowly ahead in their share of the popular vote (50.4%)

Speaking to friends in Scotland, I get the impression that opinion on the question of independence is finely balanced, with a slight majority against independence, according to the latest opinion polls.

It may well be that there is another independence referendum after the next UK general election, particularly if Labour are the largest party in a hung parliament.

However it would probably take some time to arrange the referendum, which could well take place after the next Scottish parliament election in 2026.

It has been said that the Prime Minister's unpopularity in Scotland is a factor that has increased support for independence.

But by the time the referendum takes place, it is quite likely that Boris Johnson will no longer be the leader of the (UK) Conservative Party.

So there is no guarantee that the SNP will get the result that it is hoping for.

I fear I may be missing something. How can it be 50.4% for unionist parties but only 46% for Independence parties?

You are right to point out that tactical voting is what prevented an SNP majority.

The points you make about 2026 is troubling, as that means we would not see the SG implement the policies it has been mandated to deliver.

It wont be long before people start wondering, just how many elections do the SNP need to win to be able to implement a policy before we stop calling Scotland a democracy?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wont be long before people start wondering, just how many elections do the SNP need to win to be able to implement a policy before we stop calling Scotland a democracy?

The SNP, as I said, is not a single-issue party.

 

[duncanp]

The next election is due by January 2025. Let's say Labour need the support of the SNP and Welsh/Northern Irish parties to govern. The SNP will have prepared for this eventuality, so a second referendum could be organised within 6 months. The SNP would demand it as the price of their support, and it's hard to imagine Labour refusing when the alternative could be another 5 years in opposition.

It took two years to organise the 2014 referendum, as the agreement between David Cameron and Alex Salmond to hold the referendum was signed in 2012, which in itself was a year after the Holyrood election in which the SNP gained an overall majority.

Whilst I have no doubt it could be organised quicker than that, there is no absolute guarantee that the referendum would happen before the 2026 Holyrood election, given that there would have to be a period of negotiation between the UK and Scottish governments, legislation passed at Westminster, and the Electoral Commission would have to make sure that the question on the ballot paper was fair and balanced.

There have been surveys which suggest that Should Scotland Be A Independent Country? and Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom? would not necessarily get the same response.

Even if the referendum wsa to take place before 2026, there would have to be a period of negotiation between the UK and Scottish governments before a withdrawal agreement could be made and the necessary legislation passed at Westminster, in the event of a Yes vote.

You only have to look at how long the Brexit negotiations took.

It is entirely possible that the legislation giving rise to Scottish independence could be subject to a second confirmatory referendum once the terms and conditions have been agreed.

This is, after all, what Nicola Sturgeon wanted in respect of Brexit, and surely she would want to be consistent?

 

[Falcon1200]

You are using an artificial test to make your argument.

I would say the artifice is equating the votes cast to elect the Scottish Parliament as justification for an independence referendum; The former does not require the majority of votes, and indeed, as @duncamp has pointed out, the governing party did not achieve either a majority of seats or votes but was still (rightly) able to form a government by means of a coalition. Whereas achieving independence most certainly does require a majority; This is why I do not agree that the SNP/Greens have a mandate for another Indyref, or that Scotland is being democratically short-changed. Apart from which, having lived through the 2014 campaign, and the ongoing and never-ending aftermath, I have no desire to go through it all again.

Should there however be Indyref2, imagine what would happen if the result was close, which on current evidence it might well be; Would a 50.1% Yes vote really justify the huge upheaval and cost of separating Scotland from the UK, given that as there are always those who do not bother to vote, even on such crucial matters, 50.1% Yes would be less than half of the electorate ? Or, if 50.1% said No, would the SNP say fair enough, we've had our chance twice and failed, so we'll call it a day - Somehow I don't think so !

 

[duncanp]

I would say the artifice is equating the votes cast to elect the Scottish Parliament as justification for an independence referendum; The former does not require the majority of votes, and indeed, as @duncamp has pointed out, the governing party did not achieve either a majority of seats or votes but was still (rightly) able to form a government by means of a coalition. Whereas achieving independence most certainly does require a majority; This is why I do not agree that the SNP/Greens have a mandate for another Indyref, or that Scotland is being democratically short-changed. Apart from which, having lived through the 2014 campaign, and the ongoing and never-ending aftermath, I have no desire to go through it all again.

Should there however be Indyref2, imagine what would happen if the result was close, which on current evidence it might well be; Would a 50.1% Yes vote really justify the huge upheaval and cost of separating Scotland from the UK, given that as there are always those who do not bother to vote, even on such crucial matters, 50.1% Yes would be less than half of the electorate ? Or, if 50.1% said No, would the SNP say fair enough, we've had our chance twice and failed, so we'll call it a day - Somehow I don't think so !

Another point to be made is that you can't assume that people who vote for a unionist/pro independence party at a general election in Scotland, or at a Scottish parliament election, are necessary going to vote No/Yes in an independence referendum.

Some of the people who vote for the SNP at Westminster elections will want Scotland to stay in the UK, but to be represented at Westminster by a party that promotes Scotland's interests strongly.

I think that if the result of any future referendum is really close, but in favour of independence, you may find that there is a people's vote second referendum once the terms and conditions of the separation are known.

 

[najaB]

They did not long have one. How often would you see re-polling as appropriate? It could get a bit silly.

Indeed, it could get silly. And any party would know that repeated referenda on the same issue would be a losing strategy. So they will hold one when they feel that they have a reasonable chance of getting the result that they desire.

It is true that the 2014 referendum was close in terms of time, but a lot has changed since then.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think that if the result of any future referendum is really close, but in favour of independence, you may find that there is a people's vote second referendum once the terms and conditions of the separation are known.

I don't see anything wrong with that approach. There would have to be some reasonable concessions, such as delaying the next Scottish election until the second referendum could be held, but that's about it. From a political point of view, it would mean that the SNP/Greens would have to achieve the best possible outcome for Scotland, while the UK Government would also have to consider their actions.

However, it's fraught with danger for the UK Government. People may well vote Yes in the first vote just to see what is on offer, and the SNP/Greens would be entering the second referendum as a victor.

 

[317 forever]

Ever since the independence referendum the SNP have won all Westminster & Holyrood elections, and the European elections in 2019. They have in turn become the natural party of government in Scotland for the foreseeable future. In this respect, the SNP could be said to have won the 2014 referendum in all but achieving Yes to independence.