Scottish Independence

[banterman86]

Erm, I assume "vote this down" meant the referendum itself.

The argument that the SNP are overreaching or being presumptuous here is so flagrantly disingenuous you'd only get it from someone paid for the cause or a PnB troll.

Yeah i thought that, but the posters intital point was about the bill.

Like I said, i'm not sure here. I think the SNP probably need to do it, but i think it might go against their previous stance that a written constituion would be cross-party and non-party - not unlike the National Constituional Convention. I see it's being described as a "draft" though

[Tryfield]

Live Q&A session from Irvine.

http://www.scotreferendum.com/2014/03/public-discussion-in-irvine/

[banterman86]

Eh?

I think we're at cross purposes.

All he has to do is vote No in September and if enough people agree with him in that democratic process then the worries he has will go away.

Either way it's democracy in action.

We are a bit - the question of whether the SNP has a mandate to draft a constituion bill is iffy, but then again, if they weren't they'd be getting criticsed for it. I think on balance this is the right move.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I'm sick top the back teeth of unionists demanding answers and then whingeing like little bitches that Scotland is being railroaded by the SNP when they get the answers the demanded.

That also applies to independence supporters and the currency union debate to be fair.

I think there are a good chunk of people on both sides who have no real interest in what the alternative arguments are. The SNP (and Salmond in particular) are constantly subjected to ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with whatever is being discussed, while as we saw with the budget threads on here, Westminster could promise us all a free gold bar each, a night with the celebrity of our choice and World Cup wins for each of the home nations, and the response would still be "f*cking Tory b*stards."

[Tubbs]

So you think they should have simply announced the referendum and then what? Refused to comment for 2 years whilst Labour sat and attacked their lack of a vision of what a post independence Scotland would look like?

If people want a new currency - they vote in a government AFTER the referendum in a democratic process who advocates a new currency.

What exactly is the problem here?

A blank cheque for the SNP?????? What?

Honestly bud I have absolutely no idea where you are going with any of this at all.

My point is very simple in the event of a yes vote the SNP does not have any mandate on the terms of negotiation re the break up of the UK. The referendum is a simple yes or no; it does not show any will of the people in terms of what the new country should look like Your comment re the last 2 years misses the point, I am presuming deliberately.

The currency issue is a good example; its possible that any negotiations on a shared currency (if they happen at all post a yes vote) could include HMG wishing a lock in period or period of notice to bring some stability and its a point that could suit both sides. Accordingly with no mandate the current Scottish Government could lock in the first properly elected parliament to the new Scotland with a currency they don't want.

Right across the whole range of negotiations the current SG would be acting perhaps on the white paper? (or perhaps not) which is a manifesto never tested by the election process.

[Tubbs]

. It's all open to discussion, debate and negotiation after a Yes vote.

Crucially no election, which would allow the people of Scotland to influence the potentially massive negotiations to bring about the potential new Scotland in a matter of 18 months in the event of a yes.

[Thumper]

That also applies to independence supporters and the currency union debate to be fair.

Hmmm. My understanding was that the Yes campaign's position was that the Edinburgh Agreement allowed them to defer getting a solid answer to that until after the referendum, but with the expectation of a good-faith response. Instead, six months before the vote, every political party in the country announced in unison (holding hands and braiding each others' hair) that the good faith response was to be "ehh naw, youse are pure on yer ain".

[Davi3j]

Crucially no election, which would allow the people of Scotland to influence the potentially massive negotiations to bring about the potential new Scotland in a matter of 18 months in the event of a yes.

Yeah, because we would all want JoLa negotiating for us.

[Todders]

If any opposition politician wants to help negotiate positively on behalf of Scotland I'm sure the SNP would not be so churlish as to exclude them from the process.

I believe Jackson Carlow has already intimated that he will be willing to help argue for the best deal for Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. I would hope that all of Scotlandfs politicians will be able to set aside their party political differences in order to win their constituents the best possible start for the nation they have just voted to re-establish.

If they aren't willing to do so then hell mend them come the 2016 election.

[Mr Bairn]

If any opposition politician wants to help negotiate positively on behalf of Scotland I'm sure the SNP would not be so churlish as to exclude them from the process.

I believe Jackson Carlow has already intimated that he will be willing to help argue for the best deal for Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. I would hope that all of Scotlandfs politicians will be able to set aside their party political differences in order to win their constituents the best possible start for the nation they have just voted to re-establish.

If they aren't willing to do so then hell mend them come the 2016 election.

Good post. The only issue I can see is that these party political differences may not exist as we know them.

The Tories and Lib Dems are unelectable in Scotland. Now some would argue that even under the Westminster system the Scottish Conservatives should change their name and split away from the London party, so if we were actually to go independent I think the Scottish Conservatives would simply cease to exist and some of their prominent members may have a go at rebuilding a new centre-right party from the grassroots up.

As for the Lib Dems most of them would probably join the SNP. If you look at their 2010 manifesto before the coalition they shared a lot of policies with the SNP(local income tax, anti trident, favourable to EU membership and immigration) with the main difference just the position on the union. If Scotland was to secede I think current Lib Dems would by-and-large become SNP voters.

That leaves Labour, and the only thing that actually keeps them popular is the fact that they're seen as "Not the Tories" - Now given that they're probably pretty close to the core vote just now, and that they're most popular amongst OAPs and those who have been voting since pre Thatcher, it's safe to say they would be no match for the SNP aided by the influx of Lib Dem voters.

So you've basically got a wounded Labour, a grassroots centre-right party, and the SNP. It's no stretch to say an independent Scotland could become as much of a one party state as South Africa has since democracy was restored in the early nineties.

[Todders]

None of that is going to happen in the 18 months between a Yes vote and independence day. Longer term the party political battle lines will be redrawn...but they will be redrawn in a way that is far more representative of Scotland.

[ayrmad]

If any opposition politician wants to help negotiate positively on behalf of Scotland I'm sure the SNP would not be so churlish as to exclude them from the process.

I believe Jackson Carlow has already intimated that he will be willing to help argue for the best deal for Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. I would hope that all of Scotlandfs politicians will be able to set aside their party political differences in order to win their constituents the best possible start for the nation they have just voted to re-establish.

If they aren't willing to do so then hell mend them come the 2016 election.

Only an idiot can't see that politicians on all sides will want to participate in the negotiation process, no matter what they say now they will want to be fighting for Scotlands interests then,the big problem will come when some of the worst offenders at dissing Scotland step up to the plate, as IMHO some have disqualified themselves due to their behaviour so far.

[banterman86]

Hmmm. My understanding was that the Yes campaign's position was that the Edinburgh Agreement allowed them to defer getting a solid answer to that until after the referendum, but with the expectation of a good-faith response. Instead, six months before the vote, every political party in the country announced in unison (holding hands and braiding each others' hair) that the good faith response was to be "ehh naw, youse are pure on yer ain".

Ah yes the "This broke the EA" line. Which quickly became the "this broke the spirit of the EA" line.

The SNP asserted a currency union would happen in and Indy scotland in their white paper, the UK was well within their rights to say no it wouldn't, and saying so before the referndum was much fairer than saying so after Scotland had voted Yes. People deserve to know what they are voting for.

[git-intae-thum]

Good post. The only issue I can see is that these party political differences may not exist as we know them.

The Tories and Lib Dems are unelectable in Scotland. Now some would argue that even under the Westminster system the Scottish Conservatives should change their name and split away from the London party, so if we were actually to go independent I think the Scottish Conservatives would simply cease to exist and some of their prominent members may have a go at rebuilding a new centre-right party from the grassroots up.

As for the Lib Dems most of them would probably join the SNP. If you look at their 2010 manifesto before the coalition they shared a lot of policies with the SNP(local income tax, anti trident, favourable to EU membership and immigration) with the main difference just the position on the union. If Scotland was to secede I think current Lib Dems would by-and-large become SNP voters.

That leaves Labour, and the only thing that actually keeps them popular is the fact that they're seen as "Not the Tories" - Now given that they're probably pretty close to the core vote just now, and that they're most popular amongst OAPs and those who have been voting since pre Thatcher, it's safe to say they would be no match for the SNP aided by the influx of Lib Dem voters.

So you've basically got a wounded Labour, a grassroots centre-right party, and the SNP. It's no stretch to say an independent Scotland could become as much of a one party state as South Africa has since democracy was restored in the early nineties.

I'm not so sure about this continued SNP domination scenario. There is a broad spectrum in the party currently united for independence.

That achieved, I can see many SNPers moving away to parties both left and right esposing their natural political views.

Be interesting to see where the remaining SNP would settle in the political landscape.

[Mr Bairn]

I'm not so sure about this continued SNP domination scenario. There is a broad spectrum in the party currently united for independence.

That achieved, I can see many SNPers moving away to parties both left and right esposing their natural political views.

Be interesting to see where the remaining SNP would settle in the political landscape.

I mean, if you look at ROI which has to be the main precedent for a breakaway from the UK(Can't compare Scotland to Australia or Canada because they were Uk colonies as opposed to actually being part of the UK), well all the UK parties have died in ROI and all that's left are the parties that campaigned for independence back in the day.

[Thumper]

The SNP asserted a currency union would happen in and Indy scotland in their white paper, the UK was well within their rights to say no it wouldn't, and saying so before the referndum was much fairer than saying so after Scotland had voted Yes. People deserve to know what they are voting for.

So "what they are voting for" is whatever Westminster tells them is up for debate? Do we "deserve to know" that rUK is going to annex HMNB Clyde, which is another official position of the current Westminster government in the event of independence?

The EA says that things aren't set in stone. Meanwhile, Westminster is flatly stating what will happen. Why is it the Yes campaign which is in the wrong here?

[H_B]

which is another official position of the current Westminster government in the event of independence?

Evidence please.

[Thumper]

Evidence please.

Oh, my apologies. That one was merely floated to every paper in the land for Downing Street to then officially deny. I'm sure we "needed to know" nonetheless.

[H_B]

The EA says that things aren't set in stone. Meanwhile, Westminster is flatly stating what will happen..

So are the Scottish government.

Just unfortunately, they are once again, wrong.

The SG did not say, on the currency issue, that "we will have to negotiate with the rUK government, in the event of a Yes vote, which currency iScotland will use going forward. It is our intention to propose in these negotiations that we..."

Yet, strangely, you seem to have no issues with the SG declairing exactly what would happen. Albeit they were of course completely and utterly put in their place here.

[banterman86]

So "what they are voting for" is whatever Westminster tells them is up for debate?

Actually, the White paper asserts that a currency union will happen, and the majority of the polcies within it are dependent on that.

The Tories, Lib dems, Labour and the treasury have stated they do not belive that is in the best interests of either party and would not negotiate that. i think it;s entirely fair voters know that ahead of time.