Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[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.

 

[Guest Jedi]

Didn't say that I agreed with Westminster not engaging much more meaningfully with Scotland after the Ref....there should I believe have been discussions, as suggested around 'proper' alternative models, including FFA (and yes, certainly not the 'Vow')

Likewise in the EU Ref, it will end up being an irony of history that Theresa May of all people, managed to negotiate a far 'better' deal than the one which Johnson and his Anthill ERG mob eventually managed to force through.

There were indeed moments, chances for both Refs to turn out much more amicably than they did, with the suggestions above.

Another route post EU ref which should have been seriously explored and wasn't was joining EFTA as proposed by Stephen Kinnock.

The DUP of course still have a lot to answer for in enabling the ERG in the first place.

....and I have said that I absolutely think there should be a 2nd Scottish Ref as the SNP have a parliamentary mandate for one (and that was the 'govt' which the people of Scotland voted for in 2021, and so should stand, just as the Tories were the party voted for in 2019)

Edited October 12, 2022 by Jedi

[Antlion]

28 minutes ago, Jedi said:

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.

28 minutes ago, Jedi said:

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.

It’s not a similar situation at all. The idea that the EU works mainly for France and Germany is just a repetition of Brexiteers’ hackneyed arguments. And of course this is without repeating (but apparently it needs to be repeated) that the UK is a state-forming union which literally provides Scotland’s sovereign Parliament and government whereas the EU is a semi-federal union of sovereign states which does not provide the same for its members.

But by all means, keep doing the Brexiteers’ work for them (although then you’ll be in the curious position of having to explain why so many of them think the EU is bad and the UK is good). Perhaps you could also explain where our Scottish members of the UK Council and Commission - with their vetoes - are (because it’s not  as if a “union” as much like the EU as the UK is would neglect to allow member nations’ constitutional safeguards, right?).

And congratulations - you’ve delineated the case for independence nicely. With independence, Scotland will always get its electorates’ own way when it comes to our sovereign parliament. Just as most countries’ electorates do.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Antlion

[The_Kincardine]

41 minutes ago, Jedi said:

The UK political system naturally favours the country with the biggest population (by some distance),

This is complete nonsense on several levels.

1. It ignores the 300 years of history - since we created a new nation - wherein the Scotch tail has wagged the English dog.

2. It assumes that Scotland and England are political, social and cultural homogeneities who vote or work in opposition to each other.  The opposite is true.  Both Scotland and England are pluralistic broad kirks with a large overlap on the Venn diagram.

But then crass simplicity is necessary to be a Nat.

[RawB93]

Straight into the Nippy thread to blow off some steam  

Excellent.

[Florentine_Pogen]

8 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is complete nonsense on several levels.

1. It ignores the 300 years of history - since we created a new nation - wherein the Scotch tail has wagged the English dog.

2. It assumes that Scotland and England are political, social and cultural homogeneities who vote or work in opposition to each other.  The opposite is true.  Both Scotland and England are pluralistic broad kirks with a large overlap on the Venn diagram.

But then crass simplicity is necessary to be a Nat.

[The_Kincardine]

19 minutes ago, RawB93 said:

Straight into the Nippy thread to blow off some steam  

Excellent.

Haha.  We got skelped in Europe and, of course, I did the right thing and simply admitted we weren't up to the task.

Daft Dotty Bane got skelped in the SC and her response?  In true Natter fashion she squealed like a stuck pig.  "It's just not fair".  BooHoo:

 

[Antlion]

45 minutes ago, RawB93 said:

Straight into the Nippy thread to blow off some steam  

Excellent.

Well, I mean, what’s the alternative - spending time with a warm and loving and thoroughly successful family?

Edited October 13, 2022 by Antlion

[Satoshi]

5 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is complete nonsense on several levels.

1. It ignores the 300 years of history - since we created a new nation - wherein the Scotch tail has wagged the English dog.

2. It assumes that Scotland and England are political, social and cultural homogeneities who vote or work in opposition to each other.  The opposite is true.  Both Scotland and England are pluralistic broad kirks with a large overlap on the Venn diagram.

But then crass simplicity is necessary to be a Nat.

Not only does England dominate every aspect of the UK, it should dominate every aspect of the UK.

It's comfortably more than the 5x the size of every other nation put together.

There's a reason why no other nation in the world has this, it's completely bonkers. Germany and the US have largest states, but said states are not 5x the size of everyone else put together.

At the time of the act of union, Ireland's population alone was pretty close to England (within 1 million or a third).

And England's population is growing faster from a much bigger base. So, when the rest of the UKs population is equivalent to a small part of London, is that when we say maybe this union won't work out? (All other nations combined is already smaller than London).

[DeeTillEhDeh]

This is complete nonsense on several levels.
1. It ignores the 300 years of history - since we created a new nation - wherein the Scotch tail has wagged the English dog.
2. It assumes that Scotland and England are political, social and cultural homogeneities who vote or work in opposition to each other.  The opposite is true.  Both Scotland and England are pluralistic broad kirks with a large overlap on the Venn diagram.
But then crass simplicity is necessary to be a Nat.

He isn't a Nat.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is complete nonsense on several levels.
1. It ignores the 300 years of history - since we created a new nation - wherein the Scotch tail has wagged the English dog.
2. It assumes that Scotland and England are political, social and cultural homogeneities who vote or work in opposition to each other.  The opposite is true.  Both Scotland and England are pluralistic broad kirks with a large overlap on the Venn diagram.
But then crass simplicity is necessary to be a Nat.

He isn't a Nat.

Give him a break, he's probably "not thinking particularly clearly" as per usual in the wee small hours, and his new team just got absolutely annihilated in the Battle of Britain on their way to become the worst performing side ever in the Champions League. Not the best of nights/mornings for the auld doormat. 

[btb]

12 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

 

1. Remember “a week’s a long time in politics”?

Despite the polls there is nothing to guarantee that YES wouldn’t win and that scares the life out of the Unionists.

***************

2. Also anyone who thinks defeat in IndyRef2 puts the whole thing to bed isn’t paying attention.

 

1. My argument is that the issue has been there or thereabouts in the news since 2014 and that there aren't many undecideds or soft YES/NO voters to move the needle very far, although I accept that the margin is so fine that nothing could be guaranteed.

2. If you look at the IndyRef2 thread it only got 4/5 pages in the year between when it was launched and Brexit - if NO won IndyRef2 it would need something as seismic as Brexit to create interest in IndyRef3.

[btb]

12 hours 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 sense English Tories are conflicted on whether it would be good for them for Scotland to gain independence, they see us as more trouble than we're worth but at the same time cannot bear to see us hived off and their status as a world power  diminished. 

[Mark Connolly]

6 minutes ago, btb said:

I sense English Tories are conflicted on whether it would be good for them for Scotland to gain independence, they see us as more trouble than we're worth but at the same time cannot bear to see us hived off and their status as a world power  diminished. 

I read once that Westminster loves Scotland, but hates the Scots. I think that's pretty much the whole issue

[TheScarf]

41 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

I read once that Westminster loves Scotland, but hates the Scots. I think that's pretty much the whole issue

That's it in a nutshell.  

[Guest Jedi]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is complete nonsense on several levels.

1. It ignores the 300 years of history - since we created a new nation - wherein the Scotch tail has wagged the English dog.

2. It assumes that Scotland and England are political, social and cultural homogeneities who vote or work in opposition to each other.  The opposite is true.  Both Scotland and England are pluralistic broad kirks with a large overlap on the Venn diagram.

But then crass simplicity is necessary to be a Nat.

And of course if you read on in the post I made about the UK political system, the point was that England has significantly more Westminster seats than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland...as it should do with having the largest population (by some distance), and also that in a GE,  therefore the terms of its outcome mean that we get the 'government which we (the whole of the UK) voted for', as we do in a Holyrood election (when the 'whole' of Scotland has the option to vote), and on years past a European Parliamentary election when a Political grouping gains the most seats (across the whole of the EU). These are the rules and terms of each election.

I agree that the imbalance of populations across the UK with the London area indeed housing more people than the whole of Scotland will always create political tensions.

In an ideal world I would replace the H of L with a Council of the Nations whereby Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland send reps to make decisions which effect the whole island (defence and foreign policy). Scotland gets Full Fiscal Autonomy, as do the other two. To me its the only way to properly balance the current model. 

If there was ever a 3 choice Referendum (full Independence, FFA or the status quo) I think FFA would win a comfortable majority. The other 3 (as well as England), would, and should have the option of joining EFTA as well 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

And of course if you read on in the post I made about the UK political system, the point was that England has significantly more Westminster seats than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland...as it should do with having the largest population (by some distance), and also that in a GE,  therefore the terms of its outcome mean that we get the 'government which we (the whole of the UK) voted for', as we do in a Holyrood election (when the 'whole' of Scotland has the option to vote), and on years past a European Parliamentary election when a Political grouping gains the most seats (across the whole of the EU). These are the rules and terms of each election.
I agree that the imbalance of populations across the UK with the London area indeed housing more people than the whole of Scotland will always create political tensions.
In an ideal world I would replace the H of L with a Council of the Nations whereby Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland send reps to make decisions which effect the whole island (defence and foreign policy). Scotland gets Full Fiscal Autonomy, as do the other two. To me its the only way to properly balance the current model. 
If there was ever a 3 choice Referendum (full Independence, FFA or the status quo) I think FFA would win a comfortable majority. The other 3 (as well as England), would, and should have the option of joining EFTA as well 
 

The federal ship sailed with Labour's less than enthusiastic attempts to bring in Regional Assemblies in England.

When it comes to constitutional and electoral reform there is a significant element within the Labour Party who are inherently conservative (with a small c).

[Guest Jedi]

Don't disagree with the lack of appetite for real Federalism, but.....in the event of another No vote in a Referendum, or continuing to be blocked by Westminster, could the SNP move to a policy of FFA in futute elections?

Also, if there was a very narrow No vote, FFA should be on the table as the next consideration. 

[Detournement]

What Nippy is actually committed to.