Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Guest Jedi]

2 minutes ago, sophia said:

You absolutely do have the intellectual capacity to do something that even a luddite like me can embrace.

You just need to be open to new possibilities.

click click 

This post is brought to you by www.allegorical.co.uk 

 

 

Fair play

[ICTChris]

8 minutes ago, sophia said:

The yes movement is not the snp.

I for one, not a member of the SNP, would be redoubled in my determination.

It would be very far "from that"

 

This is true but electorally speaking it's really the SNP who are the independence movement, especially in the context of winning seats in UK general elections.

I absolutely believe you when you say it would redouble your determination and I'm sure a great many people would say the same but determination to do what?  What would the Yes Movement do?  Mass civil disobedience?  General strikes?  I genuinely don't know.

[ICTChris]

15 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I think the Tories would be more likely to concede a referendum, if it meant they would hold on to power, than Labour. Look how they shafted the DUP to get Brexit through, and they have contempt for the Scottish Tories, especially "lightweight" Ross. Whether the SNP would take the risk of what putting the Tories back in power would do to their popularity if they lost the referendum raises another doubt.

I think this is a good point.  Maybe not right now but in a few years at least some of the Tory Party in England could be persuaded that Scottish independence would be a good idea for them.

[Detournement]

They need to start giving Wings money again and have more dress up rallies on weekends. 

[sophia]

Just now, ICTChris said:

This is true but electorally speaking it's really the SNP who are the independence movement, especially in the context of winning seats in UK general elections.

I absolutely believe you when you say it would redouble your determination and I'm sure a great many people would say the same but determination to do what?  What would the Yes Movement do?  Mass civil disobedience?  General strikes?  I genuinely don't know.

Civic Scotland, same as before devolution.

I despaired at the democratic deficit for a number of years but by the time of the vote the weight of positivity was irresistible.

There will be little in the way of credibility for anyone arguing for the status quo and any campaign will be led, same as devo, by some character such as Donald Findlay. Nobody else will touch it with a bargepole.

 

[Todd_is_God]

16 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It'll be better than violence which is what we're likely to be facing if the Tories keep simply ignoring the growing calls for another independence referendum.

Not saying that is imminent but it's where it will eventually end up.

Violence where? In Scotland? What good will that do? A terror campaign similar to the troubles? Let's hope not.

I think it's far more likely that nothing would happen tbh. The vast majority of people who would vote yes in a referendum probably don't care strongly enough about it to do anything drastic. They'll grumble about it, yes, but the status quo to them isn't unliveable.

Look at the demographic who largely attend Yes demos and marches. Those people are passionate about what they believe in but they wouldn't say boo to a goose never mind get violent about it

[BFTD]

24 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I don't think a UK government will ever again hold a referendum on something they don't want to happen.  The Cameron government almost lost the Scottish referendum and then did lose the Brexit referendum.  The gamble was massive on both and given what's happened since Brexit and, to a far lesser degree, since the independence referendum, no UK government will ever do it again.

David Cameron and his allies might not necessarily have wanted the UK to leave the EU, but plenty of powerful people within society and the Conservative Party did, and Cameron knew it wouldn't be a personal disaster if it did happen. As plenty of folk have pointed out, it had to happen to head off the threat of Labour winning power back by the right-wing vote being split between the Tories and another anti-EU party.

It's been absolutely wonderful for them, and will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving, in terms of actualising policies that they've dreamed of implementing but never could within the EU, or while being bound by the ECHR.

[BFTD]

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

They need to start giving Wings money again and have more dress up rallies on weekends. 

f**k up, Stuart. Cannon Fodder 2 was shite.

[DublinMagyar]

It might be the end of the SNP but IMO there's no chance of it being the end of independence. Too many people in the country have invested their entire sense of identity in an independent Scotland to just walk away because the Tories said No.
Democracy denied will absolutely end in violence. It's as simple as that and the evidence is in virtually every part of the world when freedom is denied to people.

For once, he's correct

[Antlion]

7 minutes ago, Jedi said:

 

Say its 'Yes' by 51/52%.....you could see a rejoin the UK position emerging from the other parties. That may seem laughable, but with such a narrow majority, same as the Brexit vote, and around half the country in the other camp....does that keep the debate going as well?

 

The UK isn’t a modern federation but a “union” which fancies itself a nation state. With that in mind, I’d welcome losing UKNat parties begging the Scottish electorate to dissolve Scottish sovereignty in order to ask the Parliament in England to reduce Scotland to a region again. It would be as funny as it is bizarre - like watching parties in Portugal beg the Portuguese people for a mandate to abolish the country as a sovereign state and to ask Spain to let them send a minority of representatives to the parliament in Madrid. The UK simply isn’t a leave/rejoin type of modern union and was never set up as one; it was set up as an exercise in state-building.

Is there a modern precedent for newly-independent sovereign states having parties actively trying to dissolve their nation’s statehood and asking another country to accept them as a minor region, or would the lads you’re proposing be the first? I can see the likes of Sarwar telling us, “we got it wrong. We should never have been a country. Vote for me and I’ll beg Nadine Dorries to take all our taxes, natural resources, and to govern us like the wee northern county we should have remained.”

[Guest Jedi]

Same as Brexit though in terms of the likely very slim majority of a Yes (or indeed a No) win...where you leave half the country on the losing side.....not 30 or 40% on the losing side, but around 50% The same arguments were used by Leave....about the Remoaners wanting to give up the newly won 'freedom' to just be shackled by the EU bogeyman again, and allow Junker to set the tax rates, and finance.

Given that agitation to hold a 2nd EU Ref, or at least dilute a hard Brexit tied up the House of Commons for 4 years, due, largely in part to a significant Remain number, I don't think its beyond the bounds of possibility that negotiations and the early days of Independence would be opposed by the near half of the country which had voted No. Whether that turned into the other, non-SNP parties, proposing a rejoin the UK in future, who knows, but the idea that we just need to get 51% just get over the line, and its plain sailing from there, in terms of moving forward and being able to smoothly work out the terms of it....not so sure.

As said, likewise, if its 51 No, the same applies in reverse...of course the other half won't just be walking away...and calls for a 3rd Ref would continue in future years.

The best solution undoubtedly is to hold a Ref next year, and just work with whatever the outcome is either way.....in an ideal world you would get a clear cut result of 60/65+ for either side, but that doesn't look remotely possible.

[parsforlife]

Should a indyref2 go without legal agreement we have a sliding scale that goes between continued pressure under current means, an unsanctioned ref like Catalonia, civil disobedience, riots and violent protests, terroist incident(NI) and outright war( Kosovo). At what point either side accepts defeat is unknown.

[Detournement]

Who on the Indy side is going to fight anyone? Most of the people on the marches look like they have multiple co-morbidities.

I doubt you would even find a single senior SNP figure who would do a weekender in a cell over independence never mind what the Catalan leaders have put themselves through. 

It's a hobby/identity at the grassroots level not a real political movement. 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Detournement

[Antlion]

39 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Same as Brexit though in terms of the likely very slim majority of a Yes (or indeed a No) win...where you leave half the country on the losing side.....not 30 or 40% on the losing side, but around 50% The same arguments were used by Leave....about the Remoaners wanting to give up the newly won 'freedom' to just be shackled by the EU bogeyman again, and allow Junker to set the tax rates, and finance.

Given that agitation to hold a 2nd EU Ref, or at least dilute a hard Brexit tied up the House of Commons for 4 years, due, largely in part to a significant Remain number, I don't think its beyond the bounds of possibility that negotiations and the early days of Independence would be opposed by the near half of the country which had voted No. Whether that turned into the other, non-SNP parties, proposing a rejoin the UK in future, who knows, but the idea that we just need to get 51% just get over the line, and its plain sailing from there, in terms of moving forward and being able to smoothly work out the terms of it....not so sure.

 

The big difference there is that you don’t dissolve sovereign statehood by joining the EU. The EU has clear accession routes and means of leaving, because its a modern federalised union. The Brexiters’ arguments might have made sense if the EU was like the UK, but it isn’t. In fact, if one asks them what they’d miss if the UK were to join the EU tomorrow, they seem unable to give an answer.

How are you coming on finding modern precedents for parties actively seeking to abolish their counties’ statehood in favour of asking for regional status of another state? It would be interesting to see, if they exist, how successful they are.

[Guest Jedi]

Lets assume that negotiations for Independence would take, say 2 or 3 years (seems reasonable). During that period you have nearly half the country (assuming the result is as close as all polling suggests, and isn't a 'clear 60+% who knows), buts lets assume it to be closer to 51/52 Yes...will these negotiations involve trying to bring the 'other' half of the country on board, or will it just be a case of 'you lost, get over it'?

Obviously East Germany was a separate country, prior to the fall of Communism, with financial concerns leading to German reunification.

Anguilla left Britain, to join St.Kitts and Nevis, and later opted to 'rejoin' Britain as an overseas territory and tax haven.

The islands of Comores became independent from French rule, and later voted to rejoin France.

Newfoundland was separated from Canada and later voted to rejoin.

Scotland as a 'region' is of course nationalist nomenclature....any country with its own Parliament is clearly not a 'region' or regarded as such. And the UK is cited as union of nations, not regions. 

 

[Brother Blades]

14 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Lets assume that negotiations for Independence would take, say 2 or 3 years (seems reasonable). During that period you have nearly half the country (assuming the result is as close as all polling suggests, and isn't a 'clear 60+% who knows), buts lets assume it to be closer to 51/52 Yes...will these negotiations involve trying to bring the 'other' half of the country on board, or will it just be a case of 'you lost, get over it'?

Obviously East Germany was a separate country, prior to the fall of Communism, with financial concerns leading to German reunification.

Anguilla left Britain, to join St.Kitts and Nevis, and later opted to 'rejoin' Britain as an overseas territory and tax haven.

The islands of Comores became independent from French rule, and later voted to rejoin France.

Newfoundland was separated from Canada and later voted to rejoin.

Scotland as a 'region' is of course nationalist nomenclature....any country with its own Parliament is clearly not a 'region' or regarded as such. And the UK is cited as union of nations, not regions. 

 

What if Labour have a majority of 1 seat in Westminster after the next GE? What happens for the next 5 years? 

[Antlion]

7 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Lets assume that negotiations for Independence would take, say 2 or 3 years (seems reasonable). During that period you have nearly half the country (assuming the result is as close as all polling suggests, and isn't a 'clear 60+% who knows), buts lets assume it to be closer to 51/52 Yes...will these negotiations involve trying to bring the 'other' half of the country on board, or will it just be a case of 'you lost, get over it'?

Obviously East Germany was a separate country, prior to the fall of Communism, with financial concerns leading to German reunification.

Anguilla left Britain, to join St.Kitts and Nevis, and later opted to 'rejoin' Britain as an overseas territory and tax haven.

The islands of Comores became independent from French rule, and later voted to rejoin France.

Newfoundland was separated from Canada and later voted to rejoin.

Scotland as a 'region' is of course nationalist nomenclature....any country with its own Parliament is clearly not a 'region' or regarded as such. And the UK is cited as union of nations, not regions. 

 

That ability to hit the quote button really comes and goes, doesn’t it?

The plan following a potential “Yes” vote in 2014 was to bring all parties and interests together to negotiate with the UK. (The UK plan, conversely, was to renege on what promises it could and then, from some quarters, to regret “sticking the boot in.)

The reunification of East Germany might be comparable if we went through a period of Scottish communism followed by the fall of the Tartan Wall. But there’s the slight problem of East Germany not having actually been a country before; it was a manufactured product of WWII rather than a country which joined Germany, left, then rejoined. If this is the best Sarwar, Ross, and their ilk could come up with following a “Yes” vote, I’d be delighted.

Anguilla didn’t “rejoin” the UK because it was never part of the UK. It was and is a British Overseas Territory. Similarly, Comoros was a French Overseas Territory, not part of France.

I wouldn’t say the 1940s is “modern”, but Newfoundland wasn’t a sovereign state - it was a dominion which voted on whether to stay under UK rule, go independent, or join Canada. It eventually chose to join Canada. This seems less like a country joining then voting leave then voting to rejoin a state than one voting to leave an association with one state for another. It would bear more resemblance to a Scottish referendum on whether to leave the UK and join the EU than to Scotland leaving and then begging the UK HoC to legislate for it returning to the UK.

I see we’ve returned to whether or not the UK is a union of nations or not. I agree, that’s what UKNats keep telling us - and when they insist on treating us as a region, then they ought to be reminded of it. Unfortunately, the claim really doesn’t reflect well on the UK. As a union of people, the UK would be acceptable. As a union of nations, it is demonstrably archaic, favours the nation with the biggest population, and offers member nations no national say in referendums and grossly unequal national says even in general elections.

You can imagine the howls of fury and outrage if the UK was ever in a “union of nations” which took the sovereign Parliament off British soil and saw the UK provide only a (frequently overruled) minority voice in electing it. I’ll take the EU over that kind of “union of nations” any day. But please, keep peddling that line - it’s good grist for asking why, if we’re a union of nations, we have no veto, no national sovereignty, and are told to “suck it up” because we’re only a minority.

 

[Guest Jedi]

If Labour won an election by 1 vote..or 1% they have the option to either run as a minority govt, or try to form a coalition (presumably with the Lib Dems), or another GE is held if the Kings Speech is voted down by the opposition parties.

In all cases, the result of the election is the result of the election.....same as a Referendum....If its won by 1% (either way), then yes, the winners, get to enact either Independence or remaining in the UK.

My point on Referendums is that, in the event of a very tight vote, you enact the result, absolutely, but, also try to work with the losing side to some extent in doing so....if it was a narrow No...there would have to be further discussion on what happens next in Scotland as well......can there be a more to Full Fiscal Autonomy for example....is there an agreement to hold another Ref in the event of the SNP winning the next Holyrood election...

With Brexit being so close, what should have happened (prior to the ERG lunatics taking over the Tories) was enact it, but make it as soft a Brexit as possible, do everything to remain in the Single Market.....ironically Theresa May's 'deal' probably was that softer version.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Jedi

[Antlion]

1 minute ago, Jedi said:

 

My point on Referendums is that, in the event of a very tight vote, you enact the result, absolutely, but, also try to work with the losing side to some extent in doing so....if it was a narrow No...there would have to be further discussion on what happens next in Scotland as well......can there be a more to Full Fiscal Autonomy for example....is there an agreement to hold another Ref in the event of the SNP winning the next Holyrood election...

With Brexit being so close, what should have happened (prior to the ERG lunatics taking over the Tories) was enact it, but make it as soft a Brexit as possible, do everything to remain in the Single Market.....ironically Theresa May's 'deal' probably was that softer version.

We have seen this in practice, though. Did a “No” vote last time result in meaningful constitutional change in sympathetic understanding (on the winners’ part) that “Yes” had neither gone away nor been small enough to ignore? Did that narrow Brexit vote result in sympathetic understanding on the Brexiteers’ part that two members of the “union of nations” had rejected leaving, and thus an accommodation should be sought which saw both leavers and remainers work together to achieve a compromise?

Let’s face it - we have two clear examples of the UK having had the chance (and, under your view, the moral duty) to work in favour of compromise and cooperation following the results of referendums. In both cases, it has failed spectacularly. The result is that Yes Scotland hasn’t faded and the SNP have won fresh mandates, and polls indicate that a majority of Britons actually now favour EU membership. The UK government (and in fact both major parties) know all of this. Still, they don’t give a merry f**k about acknowledging anything but the “winning” sides.

 

[Guest Jedi]

The UK political system naturally favours the country with the biggest population (by some distance), and conversely, most Westminster seats are of course situated in England.

Is it not a rather similar situation in the (Federal) EU, with regard to relative population sizes and influence? For example Germany and France (as arguably the 2 most influential nations, and with the largest populations), banded together in 2012 to impose austerity conditions on Italy, in return for a bail out. When the Italians refused to play ball, Germany and France effectively chose the next Italian Finance Minister..job done (although it rather backfired with the rise of Lega Nord).

When we vote(d) in an EU Parliament election, did we get the 'political grouping' of our choice (from Scotland) in the chamber? Answer is no...as the SNP winners of the last 2 European elections in Scotland, were members of the European Free Alliance, but the majority grouping were the right wing European People's Party.....so should we have left the EU in order to get election results that we 'voted' for in Scotland? I would imagine not.

Smaller countries again within the EU are limited in their input to the decision making process, so the likes of Malta, Ireland, Estonia etc have to abide by laws which are largely set by the main players of France and Germany.

Does that mean that a smaller nation like Scotland shouldn't be in the EU? Of course it should, but at the same time we would be realistic about the influence we would have (and not 'getting the party/grouping' we voted for in the EU Parliament), but we would recognise these elections as EU wide and therefore accept the result.

So...back to Westminster. When it is a UK election does the same principle not apply? We are taking part in a UK wide process (same as the EU example), not a Scottish or Welsh one, and therefore 'get the government' voted for by a majority of 4 nations.

Its not quite like football when Celtic have to win every week, in the sense that you can't always get your own way politically.