Second Scottish Independence Referendum

[bramling]

Given the likely timescales of Brexit and how long it would take to arrange a vote and Scottish independence, I would think it was already too late to avoid Brexit taking Scotland out of the EU when the referendum result was announced.

Sturgeon doesn't care how it's achieved, she goes to bed every night and dreams of an independent Scotland. Where she may have misjudged is on how much the Scottish people actually care about being in the EU. Whilst in a yes/no referendum a majority of Scots may have selected remain, it doesn't automatically follow that as a nation large numbers of people feel that strongly about it. Sturgeon could perhaps forge a path towards independence if she can try and inflate such strength of feeling and translate it into a yes vote in any future independence referendum. Time will tell if that tactic gains momentum.

As for Northern Ireland, I'm not so sure recent events are necessarily connected to Brexit. Changing demographics in Northern Ireland was always going to result in a gradual reduction in unionist support and a corresponding shift the other way. It's quite possible we have simply reached the natural tipping point.

 

[muz379]

To be fair, when has the UK national stage ever really given Wales or Northern Ireland much airtime?

Very true , but at no other time have politics in Westminster ever spelled out such significant changes for the people of Wales or NI .

 

[Senex]

As for Northern Ireland, I'm not so sure recent events are necessarily connected to Brexit. Changing demographics in Northern Ireland was always going to result in a gradual reduction in unionist support and a corresponding shift the other way. It's quite possible we have simply reached the natural tipping point.

That certainly seems to be true. Wasn't it the case that three of the six counties never had a Unionist majority and were included in the partition because it was thought that just three counties would not be viable?

In the case of Ireland, centuries of mistreatment by the English and a lack of any sensitivity for Irish aspirations eventually led to a very bitter separation with consequences we all remember only too well, with the parties only beginning to be reconciled with the Good Friday Agreement. Is the present Westminster (i.e. effectively English) government's attitude of superiority and lack of sensitivity towards Scotland going to lead to a bitterness between the two countires similar to that that poisoned Anglo-Irish relations for so long?

 

[Barn]

Completely agree , she is actually paying more attention to the voices of the backbenchers in her own party than the first minister of an important part of the union .

Another alternative is that Sturgeon has been listened to but her proposals are unworkable nonsense at best, or designed deliberately to be unworkable at worst?

 

[najaB]

Another alternative is that Sturgeon has been listened to but her proposals are unworkable nonsense at best, or designed deliberately to be unworkable at worst?

As is often the case, it isn't what Mrs May has said that causes the animosity but rather how it has been said. I struggle to see how Scotland could be in the free market and the rUK outside. However it doesn't feel/seem like the UK government has studied the proposal and found it unworkable and more that they have dismissed it outright.

 

[meridian2]

From the codified language yesterday I imagine May will remove Britain from Europe, and once we have left and the settlement is clear, Scotland will get its second referendum in a few years time.

 

[Senex]

Another alternative is that Sturgeon has been listened to but her proposals are unworkable nonsense at best, or designed deliberately to be unworkable at worst?

Given that none of us has been in on whatever discussions there may have been and that there has been remarkably little in the way of leaks of whatever debate or other consideration may have gone on, doesn't it come down to which of Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May one finds the more credible. For me and in this case, that's Nicola Sturgeon, not least because Theresa May has shewn herself so inflexible in moving towards a hard Brexit. For others it will be Theresa May.

 

[Barn]

Given that none of us has been in on whatever discussions there may have been and that there has been remarkably little in the way of leaks of whatever debate or other consideration may have gone on, doesn't it come down to which of Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May one finds the more credible. For me and in this case, that's Nicola Sturgeon, not least because Theresa May has shewn herself so inflexible in moving towards a hard Brexit. For others it will be Theresa May.

Not sure credibility is the right word. On that measure, a hard Brexit (otherwise known as Brexit) is the only thing we can be sure of achieving.

Soft options involving being half in, half out and especially involving parts of states being in and parts being out are by far the more fanciful and less realistic. They haven't been done before in this way and there are practical, political and dogmatic reasons why the EU wouldn't want to do them.

 

[Senex]

Not sure credibility is the right word.

I was using it in quite a limited sense, to refer to whether or not one feels one can believe what that person is saying.

 

[meridian2]

Not sure credibility is the right word. On that measure, a hard Brexit (otherwise known as Brexit) is the only thing we can be sure of achieving.

Soft options involving being half in, half out and especially involving parts of states being in and parts being out are by far the more fanciful and less realistic. They haven't been done before in this way and there are practical, political and dogmatic reasons why the EU wouldn't want to do them.

The biggest obstacle was free movement of people. This shouldn't have been a deal breaker, but it's an EU article of faith so a UK exemption was never on the table. Completely free movement is a weird concept in international relations, it means that in extremis an entire population could up sticks and transplant themselves to another country, supported by international law. It's only the EU's ideological normalisation of the idea that has rendered it unproblematic, and depicted its opponents as small-minded xenophobes. You can only arrive at such a conclusion by removing hundreds of years of cultural and historic difference with a friendly year zero face.

I support Scotland's decision for independent nationhood because small is beautiful, and it does have the necessary discrete cultural reference points. I despair that the SNP's monomaniacs have chosen the EU octopus as the vehicle for its separate identity. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is a suitable aphorism.

 

[AlterEgo]

I support Scotland's decision for independent nationhood because small is beautiful, and it does have the necessary discrete cultural reference points. I despair that the SNP's monomaniacs have chosen the EU octopus as the vehicle for its separate identity. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is a suitable aphorism.

Sturgeon seems to be vacillating over the EU at present.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...romise-scotland-would-remain-eu-independence/

It's all a bit weird.

 

[radamfi]

it means that in extremis an entire population could up sticks and transplant themselves to another country, supported by international law.

But that's "in extremis". In reality people mostly want to stay near their friends and family. Even within the same country there are significant barriers to moving to another part of the country, even if you want to. Mostly it is the people with better skills who get itchy feet. So no need to put artificial barriers in the way of stopping people doing what they want.

 

[Barn]

I support Scotland's decision for independent nationhood because small is beautiful, and it does have the necessary discrete cultural reference points.

I support the right to decide (although not twice in 5 years and not without clear support for the referendum). The sad thing is the extent to which many Scots don't feel British anymore. Even the No campaign was about economics rather than shared patriotism.

My impression is that in the mid twentieth century many Scots felt no conflict between their two identities. Some has been engendered by Thatcher et al, some by devolution but in recent times it seems to be led largely by the SNP's very successful campaign of presenting Scotland as a victim of the UK.

Some of this may be true, other parts not. It is largely self-fulfilling though given the SNP's apparent unwillingness to be seen to be working constructively alongside a Tory government.

The UK needs some positive, non-patronising way of countering that, which will probably need changes to our constitution. I'm not convinced T-May is the best person to lead that but, in any event, it would be nice if we could allow a few post-Brexit years for the UK to try to sort this out.

Selfishly, I quite like the fact that my country contains mountains and lochs and great cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow.

 

[meridian2]

But that's "in extremis". In reality people mostly want to stay near their friends and family. Even within the same country there are significant barriers to moving to another part of the country, even if you want to. Mostly it is the people with better skills who get itchy feet. So no need to put artificial barriers in the way of stopping people doing what they want.

I disagree, there have been large scale waves migration into the UK based on an open borders policy, and no equivalent increase in central funding for the public services necessary to support them. I have no problem with any individual, especially one who was raised under the Soviet yoke seeking a better life for themselves and their family in the UK. I don't see how every such person can be allowed their aspiration without a knock on effect on the quality of lives of the existing residents. Individuals have been allowed to seek UK residency and nationality if they desire, long before the European Union, and should be allowed to continue that aspiration through the proper channels.

 

[meridian2]

I support the right to decide (although not twice in 5 years and not without clear support for the referendum). The sad thing is the extent to which many Scots don't feel British anymore. Even the No campaign was about economics rather than shared patriotism.

My impression is that in the mid twentieth century many Scots felt no conflict between their two identities. Some has been engendered by Thatcher et al, some by devolution but in recent times it seems to be led largely by the SNP's very successful campaign of presenting Scotland as a victim of the UK.

I agree on all counts. Prior to Thatcher there was a sense of British society as essentially homogenous, albeit with enclaves as wealth and poverty and a difference in accent. A coal miner in Fife would have understood the aspirations of one in Newcastle, South Yorkshire or Kent. Thatcher unpicked those strands of commonality and prioritised individual wealth creation as the only valid objective. Parts of the UK have always had a greater sense of community and mutual responsibility than others, along with a lower GDP, but the SNP have depicted those as uniquely Scottish traits in a bid to define national difference. I have no dog in the race, but I do find the SNPs eagerness for separation based on a mistrust of the UK's same sense of autonomy deeply hypocritical.

 

[radamfi]

I disagree, there have been large scale waves migration into the UK based on an open borders policy, and no equivalent increase in central funding for the public services necessary to support them.

If the public services haven't adapted sufficiently then that's the fault of the authority/government concerned. Given that migrants contribute so much in taxes, the government could easily afford the extra funding but choose not to. So if there is a cut in public services, there has effectively been a net cut in per capita funding. Also, how do you know that public services would not have been cut even more without the immigration? If you are against immigration from another country for that reason then you should also be against immigration from within the country as there would be a similar impact on public services in a particular locality.

 

[najaB]

I disagree, there have been large scale waves migration into the UK based on an open borders policy, and no equivalent increase in central funding for the public services necessary to support them.

No more so (and indeed significantly less than) Asian migration in the 1970s, West Indian migration in the 1950s and Irish migration in the 1930s. The UK has long been a nation built on the back of migrant labour.

 

[Senex]

The sad thing is the extent to which many Scots don't feel British anymore. Even the No campaign was about economics rather than shared patriotism.

I don't feel British and don't recall ever having done. I'm English, even if it's something of which one can't always be too proud, and throughout my life I've very happily spent time in Wales and Scotland which I've seen as closely neighbouring but still rather foreign countries. But I don't feel any more attached to them than, say, to my favourite European mainland countries of Germany and Austria. Ireland is a rather curious case for me: I've always felt a closer attachment to the foreign south than to the part supposedly part of my own state, finding the northern protestant unionist attitudes a total turn-off. What is it to feel British? Is it to have some sense of one country and one nation, rather than one state and four nations? Is it simply to acknowledge some sort of loyalty to the crown as a symbol of those four nations in one state? I really don't know, and there are clearly others in all the four nations who feel likewise living alongside many who do feel that there is a British identity.

My impression is that in the mid twentieth century many Scots felt no conflict between their two identities. Some has been engendered by Thatcher et al, some by devolution but in recent times it seems to be led largely by the SNP's very successful campaign of presenting Scotland as a victim of the UK.

It was all started by the Irish nationalistic movement in the nineteenth century, ending up with the Free State and then the Republic. But wasn't it really Welsh nationalism that began to take on a much more aggressive face next, with the much greater stress on the importance of keeping the language and native culture alive and with the anti-incomer violence in some areas some fifty years ago? Scotland seems to have been a relative latecomer on the scene. Was this because it had always retained some of the more important trappings of nationhood such as its own legal system and its own educational system (I'll avoide getting into the deep waters of religion!) and so felt more sure of its own identity than Wales had done? As long as political choices in Scotland were not too far off from those made in England, things seemed to rub along not too badly, but when Scotland moved sharply to the left and England moved a bit to the right (or remained reasonsbly split between the two main parties) then the seeds for political contention were well and truly sown.

[QUOTE/]Selfishly, I quite like the fact that my country contains mountains and lochs and great cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow.[/QUOTE]

Scope for a separate thread on who has the best scenery and cities!

 

[meridian2]

No more so (and indeed significantly less than) Asian migration in the 1970s, West Indian migration in the 1950s and Irish migration in the 1930s. The UK has long been a nation built on the back of migrant labour.

With the exception of Irish immigration, much of which the Westminster government were directly or indirectly responsible for, both Asian and West Indian immigration were at the request of UK Inc.

 

[meridian2]

If the public services haven't adapted sufficiently then that's the fault of the authority/government concerned. Given that migrants contribute so much in taxes, the government could easily afford the extra funding but choose not to. So if there is a cut in public services, there has effectively been a net cut in per capita funding. Also, how do you know that public services would not have been cut even more without the immigration? If you are against immigration from another country for that reason then you should also be against immigration from within the country as there would be a similar impact on public services in a particular locality.

Migrants do not contribute sufficient taxes initially to maintain the public services, houses, schools, doctors, necessary for them. I am against insufficiently taxed inward migration when it removes affordable homes from the local housing stock.

 

[Barn]

What is it to feel British? Is it to have some sense of one country and one nation, rather than one state and four nations?

Good question. Ironically I think feeling British isn't about imagining that we are homogenous, but rather about celebrating that across our small island there is such diversity. In what other country are cities as close together as Newcastle and Edinburgh so different? It's why our flag is an amalgam of our national flags rather than a new creation.

The problem is, as clappers suggests above, politicians in the SNP are telling people that that the differences between those cities do not just revolve around accents, food, dress, literature, music, traditions. There is now a suggestion that there is a difference in virtue, in basic goodness.

The SNP like to suggest that there are some traits that are almost unique to Scotland and furthermore that all Scots share those traits.

The reality has always been that, whilst there have always been things that made Scotsmen Scots, and made Englishmen English, there was also a recognition that we were close cousins of each other. I think this relationship has always been much stronger than anything which arises simply between EU member states. I guess with extreme nationalism people now wish to cling only to their nuclear family.

 

[AlterEgo]

The problem is, as clappers suggests above, politicians in the SNP are telling people that that the differences between those cities do not just revolve around accents, food, dress, literature, music, traditions. There is now a suggestion that there is a difference in virtue, in basic goodness.

I think, honestly, that its as simple as "we hate the Tories > Scotland, in general, hates the Tories > Scotland keeps getting ruled by Tories and not getting a fair deal > let's leave".

Certainly the values and virtues of the SNP and Tories are at cross purposes with one another.

 

[PaulLothian]

...The problem is, as clappers suggests above, politicians in the SNP are telling people that that the differences between those cities do not just revolve around accents, food, dress, literature, music, traditions. There is now a suggestion that there is a difference in virtue, in basic goodness.

The SNP like to suggest that there are some traits that are almost unique to Scotland and furthermore that all Scots share those traits.

Not quite sure of the evidence base for that (a tactful under-statement...).

There is a Scots saying "We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns" which Wikipedia charmingly defines as 'a statement of egalitarian sentiments equivalent to "we're all the same under the skin" or "we are all God's children"'. Not sure how widely that sentiment would be echoed in other parts of the UK at present, though important to make clear that I am NOT saying that every Scot buys into it either.

There are certain things that do help reinforce the perception of a difference. For example, reporting of the increased numbers of hate crimes after the Brexit vote. Overall UK rise of 15%, while Scotland's rate fell by 14%.

 

[Barn]

I think, honestly, that its as simple as "we hate the Tories > Scotland, in general, hates the Tories > Scotland keeps getting ruled by Tories and not getting a fair deal > let's leave".

Certainly the values and virtues of the SNP and Tories are at cross purposes with one another.

Yeah but the "Scotland hates the Tories" thing isn't because of some inherent genetic difference between Scotland and England.

This has been cultivated. I don't by any means hold the Tories blameless in this, and to some extent I admire the SNP for their propaganda success, but there has been a real rallying cry that "Scots hate the Tories and the Tories hate Scotland".

It's an extremely recent development - see the chart below for Scottish Tory seats at Westminster since the first world war.

 

[duncanp]

Nicola Sturgeon says to Theresa May "... I was elected, you weren't..."

Er, hold on a moment - both women assumed office in similar circumstances, ie. when their predecessors resigned after not getting the result they wanted in a referendum.

So if Theresa May is "not elected", then neither was Nicola Sturgeon between 20th November 2014 and the Scottish Parliament elections last year.

And look what happened when she did stand for election. The SNP lost their overall majority, losing six seats, whilst the Conservatives gained sixteen seats.

The two seats that the Conservatives gained from the SNP were sufficient to deprive them of an overall majority.

Parties who now oppose a second referendum (conservatives, labour and liberal democrats) gained just over 52% of the constituency vote.

Ultimately it is the people of Scotland (not the SNP) who will decide this matter. If there is a swing to the SNP at the next general election in 2020, and the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021, there will be a very strong case for another referendum.

Will be interesting to see whether this affects the result of the local elections in Scotland at the beginning of May, and whether there will still be any councils controlled by a coalition of the SNP and Conservatives, and whether Labour and the Tories will form any more coalitions to shut the SNP out.

 

[PaulLothian]

Yeah but the "Scotland hates the Tories" thing isn't because of some inherent genetic difference between Scotland and England.

This has been cultivated. I don't by any means hold the Tories blameless in this, and to some extent I admire the SNP for their propaganda success, but there has been a real rallying cry that "Scots hate the Tories and the Tories hate Scotland".

It's an extremely recent development - see the chart below for Scottish Tory seats at Westminster since the first world war.

I think it is safe to say that the Conservative party of today bears little resemblance to the party of nearly a century ago!

When I was at secondary school, we had our own school election at the time of the 1966 general election, as part of a cunning plan to involve us in thinking about democracy. It didn't seem unreasonable for me to vote Conservative (the only time in my life I have ever done so) as my parents, both relatively liberal and progressive in their views, voted Conservative without a qualm.

There were no doubt things that the Conservatives did half a century ago that I would have objected to had I been older and more politically astute, but most of their policies were probably noticeably more social democratic and indeed to the left of the present Labour Party, let alone the present Conservative Party.

If you would like to entertain yourself, here are the 1966 Conservative manifesto headlines (http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/con66.htm):

- Get the economy straight, check rising prices, and restore expansion.
- Reform the trade unions.
- Remodel the Welfare State.
- Get the nation properly housed.
- Restore respect for Britain and lead her into Europe.

 

[Geezertronic]

Good question. Ironically I think feeling British isn't about imagining that we are homogenous, but rather about celebrating that across our small island there is such diversity. In what other country are cities as close together as Newcastle and Edinburgh so different? It's why our flag is an amalgam of our national flags rather than a new creation.

I have always been English never British (definitely not European), much in the same way that my friends & colleagues looking to the West are Welsh, those further west are Irish (seems to not matter which part), and those looking to the North are Scottish. Especially around Six Nations time but also in general as well

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the upcoming council elections across Scotland, the big prize for the SNP would be to take Glasgow City Council as that is the largest in Scotland.

In recent times, Glasgow CC has been corrupt (a notable example of many being the Cathedral Street bridge above Queen Street station eventually being renovated with some European money so as to take the weight of 44 ton trucks. However, the only motorised vehicles allowed over the bridge today are buses and taxis due to it being a bus lane, every day including Christmas Day and Boxing Day when no buses are in operation).

Former leaders of Glasgow CC in recent times have been of questionable quality. Steven Purcell resigned after he got caught snorting cocaine in some toilets, Gordon Matheson gave the go ahead to Harvey Nicks to redevelop a gap site along Trongate and sold the land, but Harvey Nicks pulled out of building a store in Glasgow. To top it all off, the present leader Frank McAveety - yes, the same Frank McAveety who was former MSP for Glasgow Shettleston who almost missed casting his vote in the Scottish Parliament chamber because he was in the canteen busy scoffing all the pies - has allowed the Shettleston area to have the dubious honour of having the most number of bookies and off licences per head of population.

If Labour have any desire to retain support in their heartlands, it is very simple. Abandon the Tony Blair New Labour project (which was not new, and most certainly not Labour) and to return to the values and principles that the Labour Party was originally founded upon. Leave the Thatcher type policies to the Conservatives.

 

[overthewater]

Yes the SNP are totally clean in Glasgow. Both are just as bad.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ilth-cockroaches-nicola-sturgeon-constituency

Govanhill is a notorious area of Glasgow. The conditions there would not seem out of place in a third world country or 19th century Britain. Inside many of the homes there are infestations of cockroaches and bedbugs. Outside, there are rats. Everywhere you look there is rubbish piled high and mattresses and furniture dumped in the streets. "Rats run around here during the day like they're cats and dogs," Liz Crosbie, Margaret's daughter, says. She has now moved away from the area but her mum and sisters remain there.

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/13...vements-to-unbelievable-housing-in-govanhill/


http://natcen.ac.uk/events/upcoming-events/2017/march/scotland-and-europe/

I notice its two PRO indy msp and John Curtice, not very fair.... how can we have a FAIR discussion about how to get a second vote?

Prof John Curtice will present findings from the most comprehensive survey yet of the kind of relationship with the EU that people in Scotland want in the wake of the UK-wide vote to leave the EU.
At the event, kindly hosted by Patrick Harvie MSP, Prof John Curtice will present findings from the most comprehensive survey yet of the kind of relationship with the EU that people in Scotland want in the wake of the UK-wide vote to leave the EU.
The seminar will also report on attitudes towards Scotland having a closer relationship with the EU than does the rest of the UK – and the impact of the Brexit debate on attitudes towards independence.
Reserve your place
Fill in this quick form to reserve your place.
When and where

Date: 30th March 2017
Time: 1-2pm
Location: The Fairfax Somerville Room, Scottish Parliament Building, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP

Speakers:
* Professor John Curtice, Senior Research Fellow, NatCen Social Research and UK in a Changing Europe
* Patrick Harvie MSP
* Alex Neil MSP, Convenor of the Cross-Party Group in the Scottish Parliament on Brexit

The event is part of the ‘What UK Thinks: EU’ project; funded by the ESRC as part of its ‘The UK in a Changing Europe programme’.
Led by psephologist Prof John Curtice, NatCen’s researchers have been collating and analysing all the key survey and polling data on attitudes towards the EU since before the Referendum, creating a comprehensive resource on what the British public think. All of the materials can be found on its website: http://whatukthinks.org/eu/
At the same time, ScotCen run the whatscotlandthinks.org website, which provides a comprehensive collection of data and commentary on how voters think Scotland is and should be governed.

 

[miami]

Migrants do not contribute sufficient taxes initially to maintain the public services, houses, schools, doctors, necessary for them. I am against insufficiently taxed inward migration when it removes affordable homes from the local housing stock.

Except you're wrong. Immigrants, especially recently arrives EU ones, contribute more to the tax take than they take out.