The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so, you don't believe that a majority vote creates a case for indy.

You believe that ancient blood and soil borders and something which hasn't existed for 220 years creates a case for indy.

It's a view. Just not a view based on democracy but based within your prejudices.

 

and if they did, you'd say ....?

See above.  

Viberunner is saying exactly what I have said on numerous occasions, which is that basically any region is perfectly entitled to pursue independence. In order to do this, they need to campaign politically for it and win elections with that in their manifesto. 

Only one "region" in the UK had actually fulfilled both these qualifications. 

Of course an independent Scotland (and me) would argue against any of our regions who wanted to leave. But I am perfectly relaxed about the possibility, mainly because there is not a shred of evidence that any part of Scotland would wish to do this.

Just as there is no evidence that Bristol wants independence.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Compare 2016:

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

with 2011:

We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation's future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our Referendum Bill in this next parliament. 

Only one manifesto clearly states that there will be a referendum the other states that another referendum should be possible. I don't think there should be another referendum, it seems like a divisive distraction at a time of International crisis but I would support there being another one if the SNP win a majority with a specific commitment to hold one. There really aren't enough constitutional checks in place but this seems like a simple one, campaign that you are holding a referendum if you want to hold one.

So, the constant complaint against the SNP had been that they don't accept the result of the 2016 vote and want a new referendum every day of the week.

So, instead of putting an unequivocal demand for a referendum in the manifesto, which would have proved screams of outrage from supporters of the Union, they outlined the circumstances in which they felt a referendum should be held.  This is perfectly reasonable and out was crystal clear during the election campaign that this was the snp's position.

There is absolutely no doubt that one of the conditions outlined has been met, so I don't think you really have much of a plot here.

[mcshed]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

So, the constant complaint against the SNP had been that they don't accept the result of the 2016 vote and want a new referendum every day of the week.

So, instead of putting an unequivocal demand for a referendum in the manifesto, which would have proved screams of outrage from supporters of the Union, they outlined the circumstances in which they felt a referendum should be held.  This is perfectly reasonable and out was crystal clear during the election campaign that this was the snp's position.

There is absolutely no doubt that one of the conditions outlined has been met, so I don't think you really have much of a plot here.

They don't say that in those circumstances  they will hold a referendum they say in those circumstances they "should have the right", I'm saying they do have the right if they win an election on the basis of holding one. As I've repeatedly stated we could do with a proper constitution that decides how things should work but win an election with a clear commitment to a referendum and then win a referendum is the very low bar we have set so far.

[kaosmark2]

58 minutes ago, LJS said:

Viberunner is saying exactly what I have said on numerous occasions, which is that basically any region is perfectly entitled to pursue independence. In order to do this, they need to campaign politically for it and win elections with that in their manifesto. 

Only one "region" in the UK had actually fulfilled both these qualifications. 

Of course an independent Scotland (and me) would argue against any of our regions who wanted to leave. But I am perfectly relaxed about the possibility, mainly because there is not a shred of evidence that any part of Scotland would wish to do this.

Just as there is no evidence that Bristol wants independence.

I mean, there is some evidence in that Orkney, Shetland have continued voting lib dem over SNP. There's also been local polling suggesting greater support for Westminster than Holyrood. 

[viberunner]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

I don't think there should be another referendum, it seems like a divisive distraction at a time of International crisis but I would support there being another one if the SNP win a majority with a specific commitment to hold one.

The Holyrood system was designed, by London parties, to avoid a majority. The system was designed so the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories would always be able to out-vote the SNP. That was the theory and the hope. It's a semi-PR system.

So the support should be if the SNP form the next government and they get that call passed through Holyrood legislatively. (Labour in particular didn't foresee the Scottish Greens getting seats & becoming an Indy party)

 

 

[viberunner]

20 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I mean, there is some evidence in that Orkney, Shetland have continued voting lib dem over SNP. There's also been local polling suggesting greater support for Westminster than Holyrood. 

The Liberal Democrat manifesto has a commitment to removing Orkney/Sheltand from the UK?

[viberunner]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I love how Scots like you don't think Scots are able to do anything for themselves.

I'm not Scottish and cannot be until after Independence (Scotland will offer, but not require, Scottish citizenship to rUK citizens who live in Scotland). I'm English though, thanks to too many of my "fellow" countrymen, it gives me little pride to say that.

[LJS]

32 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I mean, there is some evidence in that Orkney, Shetland have continued voting lib dem over SNP.

I lived in Shetland for 10 years. It would be true to say they feel kind of remote from Edinburgh (because they are) it would not be true to say that there is any greater love for London rule.

There have been various attempts to start Independence for Shetland movements. All of them have been complete disasters.

32 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

There's also been local polling suggesting greater support for Westminster than Holyrood. 

Has there really? I'd be interested to see that.

 

[kaosmark2]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

I lived in Shetland for 10 years. It would be true to say they feel kind of remote from Edinburgh (because they are) it would not be true to say that there is any greater love for London rule.

There have been various attempts to start Independence for Shetland movements. All of them have been complete disasters.

Has there really? I'd be interested to see that.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-debate-orkney-shetland

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18710705.shetland-looks-independence-scotland/

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18717880.opinion-mark-smith-reason-shetland-orkney-want-independence-holyrood-power-grab/

That's some articles in relation to independence from Scotland, more focused around disillusionment with Holyrood rather than serious attempts. Around the time of the first independence referendum there was talk of the Isles preferring to join rUK in the event of the SNP achieving independence. I'm pretty sure I cited some polls earlier in this thread on the issue, but I'll spend a bit of time digging to find them (2014 polls are harder to find).

[mcshed]

37 minutes ago, viberunner said:

So the support should be if the SNP form the next government and they get that call passed through Holyrood legislatively. (Labour in particular didn't foresee the Scottish Greens getting seats & becoming an Indy party)

 

Should it? As I've said we should have more checks in place for constitutional change than this one off simple majority, a requirement for a clear majority  for a manifesto commitment is slight protection against too rashily making permanent change.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-debate-orkney-shetland

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18710705.shetland-looks-independence-scotland/

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18717880.opinion-mark-smith-reason-shetland-orkney-want-independence-holyrood-power-grab/

That's some articles in relation to independence from Scotland, more focused around disillusionment with Holyrood rather than serious attempts. Around the time of the first independence referendum there was talk of the Isles preferring to join rUK in the event of the SNP achieving independence. I'm pretty sure I cited some polls earlier in this thread on the issue, but I'll spend a bit of time digging to find them (2014 polls are harder to find).

Thanks Kaos, I'm afraid there is not much of substance there - the first article is anecdotal & based on chats with a few islanders 6 years ago. 

The second & third refer to a recent decision by the Shetland Islands Council to investigate options for autonomy. Bizarrely those who oppose independence for Scotland have leapt upon this as Shetland wanting independence from Scotland. Now, if that's what they were proposing , they would equally be proposing independence from the UK - which would make them just as much dirty separatists as the SNP. 

In fact, this interpretation is a fair distance from the truth. If you are really interested in the attitudes to independence in Shetland here are a couple of articles written by a Shetlander now exiled in edinburgh written just before and just after the Shetland Islands Council voted to examine the options for greater autonomy.

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/09/08/viewpoint-autonomy-debate-returns-to-shetland/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18712662.key-shetlands-autonomy-debate-no-not-independence/

I appreciate that the second article was in "The National" so will be treated with some suspicion so I checked the writer's twitter out & he clearly isn't a mad snipper. feel free to check him out yourself...  he is...

Mathew Nicolson

@EyjarSkeggi

 

 You might also wish to check out the two main Shetland News sites neither of which feature the proposal at all on page one which would suggest that it is not an issue of any great significance to islanders.

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/category/news/

https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/

 

they do however feature stories about:

Fresh reading material for public toilet users

‘Bards in the Bog’ is back

and

Cyclists almost forced off bikes by careless driver

 

who doesn't love local newspapers?

 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, mcshed said:

Should it? As I've said we should have more checks in place for constitutional change than this one off simple majority, a requirement for a clear majority  for a manifesto commitment is slight protection against too rashily making permanent change.

As far as I am aware, every referendum held in the Uk has been conducted on the basis thet 50%+1 wins; with one exception.

I assume you are aware what the exception is and which party brought it about?

Are you happy with the outcome which delayed devolution for Scotland for 19 years?

For most of these 19 years we had Thatcher in power & no Scottish government to oppose her.

Edited October 10, 2020 by LJS

[mcshed]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

As far as I am aware, every referendum held in the Uk has been conducted on the basis thet 50%+1 wins; with one exception.

I assume you are aware what the exception is and which party brought it about?

Are you happy with the outcome which delayed devolution for Scotland for 19 years?

For most of these 19 years we had Thatcher in power & no Scottish government to oppose her.

The UK doesn't really do referenda which is why there are so few examples, certainly the international standard for this huge sort of constitutional change is some kind of requirement beyond a simple majority.

If you imagine a graph of public opinion on an issue it seems to be obvious that it will move back and forth somewhat so doing this sort of irreversible multi-generational change the moment it touches 50% will lead to regret. Either it requires the line to be well over the middle or sitting clearly on one side of the line for a number of years.

Do I wish that the SNP had been super-charged by devolution when they were a centre-right party obsessed with North Sea oil? No, no I don't. My experience with devolution makes me more likely to regret the outcome in 97 than in 79.

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, LJS said:

Viberunner is saying exactly what I have said on numerous occasions, which is that basically any region is perfectly entitled to pursue independence.

then the argument "Scotland is a country" isn't required. Care to take a guess at why he gave it? 

 

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, LJS said:

Of course an independent Scotland (and me) would argue against any of our regions who wanted to leave. 

because "Scotland is a country"?

(said by people who don't accept that Texas and Bavaria [and plenty of other places] have better justification to that claim)

It's the anti-democratic blood and soil argument.

Scotland's status 200 years ago is fuck all to do with democracy.

Sturgeon demanded that the result of a UK vote should not be forced on Scotland if it voted the other way.

Sturgeon and those such as you demand that parts of Scotland which don't want indy have it forced on them.

But it's the UK govt which is always baaaaad.  

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, LJS said:

There is absolutely no doubt that one of the conditions outlined has been met, so I don't think you really have much of a plot here.

just wondering if a minority of Scotland's local councils set the rules that the Scottish Parliament works to...?

 

Edited October 11, 2020 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

I lived in Shetland for 10 years. It would be true to say they feel kind of remote from Edinburgh (because they are) it would not be true to say that there is any greater love for London rule.

funny, cos when it was tested there was about twice as much love for London rule.

Which you knew but decided to lie about. 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

As far as I am aware, every referendum held in the Uk has been conducted on the basis thet 50%+1 wins; with one exception.

there's been two, but hey, Wales doesn't count, right? It's all about Scotland.

And hey (again), Sturgeon demanded that the referendum she disagreed with should have special non-simple-majority rules.

Fancy that eh? 

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

 

Do I wish that the SNP had been super-charged by devolution when they were a centre-right party obsessed with North Sea oil? No, no I don't. My experience with devolution makes me more likely to regret the outcome in 97 than in 79.

The Labour party were the dominant force in Scottish politics from 1979 until well after Holyrood was established regularly polling over 40% in Westminster elections whilst the SNP were generally at least 20% behind. But you are glad that we suffered all that Thatcher could throw at us without the benefit of a labour administration in Scotland to oppose her.

And you call the SNP centre right?

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

But you are glad that we suffered all that Thatcher could throw at us without the benefit of a labour administration in Scotland to oppose her.

Thatcher would have existed even without Scotland having oil. And today Scotland has no (meaningful) oil.

Would indy have existed without oil?  

It's easy to say what you didn't like, but these things need to be taken in the round when you're thinking about forever.

[eFestivals]

PS: in case you've not got it...

Scotland is enjoying the 10% uplift in lifestyles a lot, so much you like to pretend it's not there - that's how successful the round is being.

[eFestivals]

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

And you call the SNP centre right?

who knows, but I do know someone who used to loudly proclaim how Scotland was much more left wing than England.

I wonder why I haven't heard that one for a while?  

[mcshed]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

The Labour party were the dominant force in Scottish politics from 1979 until well after Holyrood was established regularly polling over 40% in Westminster elections whilst the SNP were generally at least 20% behind. But you are glad that we suffered all that Thatcher could throw at us without the benefit of a labour administration in Scotland to oppose her.

And you call the SNP centre right?

We may have reached a philosophical impasse, you seem to see no risks in a massive overhaul of society I do see that things could always get worse. Even during the 80s.

I think if there had been devolution in 79 the Scottish political landscape would have been changed and not necessarily for the better. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, mcshed said:

things could always get worse

yup, that's the factor that flag-wavers everywhere refuse to consider. 

And, as far as politicians go Sturgeon is one of the more-competent around the moment, but she's surrounded by people even most snippers don't think of as impressive - and that'd be the future.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

We may have reached a philosophical impasse,

Not sure if describe it that way. I suspect we both share in common in terms of how we'd like society to be. We simply disagree on the means of getting there.

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

you seem to see no risks in a massive overhaul of society I do see that things could always get worse.

Of course, all change brings risk with it. Those who deny this are not being realistic. However, when faced with opportunity to change, there are risks in not changing as well.

I pointed this out in 2016. 

I don't think I have been proved wrong.

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

Even during the 80s.

I think if there had been devolution in 79 the Scottish political landscape would have been changed and not necessarily for the better. 

I don't dispute this. We can't be certain how things would have panned out.