UKC

youtube.com/watch?v=YXiuKVBX9zE&

As a catchphrase, it reminds me of the effectively used 'Broken Britain' used by David Cameron, and 'Project Fear/Take Back Control' used by vote Leave, that is, whatever I think of them as campaigns (and politics), I can see the effectiveness of them.

I wonder if Indy Reff 2 will occur in Scotland some time soon?

It won’t because Boris will say no

NS is not frightened of democracy because she knows she will just ignore the result if it doesnt go her way...

Well let's face it,  now the Brexit car crash has happened we need something else to argue about endlessly, and to divert us from the fathomless black hole which is reality, and the appreciation of the crushing futility of our very existence. 

Or something like that.

Like any politician wanting to get their way, Sturgeon will wait for the most opportune time when her "view" is most likely to get through, albeit by as small a margin as necessary (even if that's by a single vote). Whether this is purely by dint of a temporary problem - such as an asshole in No.10 - then no matter, any helping hand will do. Whether this is by lies and irrational hyperbole - normal currency for politicians- then no matter, politics is power, and politicians all want more power than the next politician. Whether this means giving underage children who are legally not able to decide their own future a vote in proceedings, whilst denying adults who are native Scots but currently not living in Scotland (and hence could be repatriated or at least lose their jobs, particularly those in government or military employ) who cares, so long as she gets the result she's after.

If it goes her way, then she will declare it as a permanent vote, and will absolutely deny anyone the right to challenge the new status quo until hell freezes over.

If it doesn't go her way, then she will declare that "it was all a fix" and so forth, and start working towards another vote to be held as soon as possible, "because the country's views must be heard". If failure occurs yet again, she will keep repeating the vote until it goes her way. Then she will declare the result immutable, and deny anyone the right to challenge the new status quo until hell freezes over.

Will she care whether the end result is in the best interests of Scots, both resident in Scotland and "abroad" across the border - NO. Will she care whether the end result turns out to be the same turd-fest that Brexit has been - NO.

Why won't she care ? Because she's a politician, and only truly cares for herself.

Note to all Scots - I have the same view of Johnson et al.

I used to climb for that diversion - now I can't, so let's talk Indyref2! 

Actually no, I've found some pins I can stick in my eyes

Yes, I love it when TominEdinburgh starts ranting away 😄😄😄😄

Thanks for the suggestion,  is that an activity you can follow on strava?

Nicola ought to shut up. By definition she is a failure, as they didn't vote for independence when they had chance. Now chickens have come home to roost re leaving the EU, and she doesn't like it.

Her chutzpah is incredible. 

Pre-2014 referendum, support for independence was 28%. At the referendum 45%.
Struggling to see a 17% swing as ‘failure’.

But it was still not enough... 

One of those chickens was Cameron stating that the best way to keep Scotland in the EU was to vote 'No'. Like a huge amount of what he said, it's not aged well.

Aah. I see what you’re doing now. There’s a cave somewhere needing a troll.

He has a point really. After all he got elected PM. A clear demonstration of the problems of democracy.

Yes, being mixed Scottish and English and Irish, I've always liked the idea of a perhaps uniquely British collection of countries which hangs together, but I think it lays the ground for Indy Ref 2, given that Scotland voted to remain and has left the EU 'against it's will' as it will probably be framed by the SNP. Even if there's not a mandate within the framework of English treaties and laws, and whatever else applies, the democracy argument seems hard to argue against.

What do you mean by that? Can't see her declaring independence in the face of a no vote.

Don't you mean "when tom_in_edinburgh starts typing and hitting Post Message"?  

They don’t need to argue against it though. They can just say “no” to any requests for a referendum, which is exactly what they will do.

Not sure the Scottish  Independence supporters have really integrated fully that they do not have a say in this.

Explain please

That Britain is indeed ‘broken’?

The fact that the referendum failed (in her view), even though the same type of exaggeration and bare-faced lies that succeeded in the Brexit vote were used, means it was a failure.

If any politician or other supporter of a "political" decision such as Brexit or independence who stated outright lies or blatant exaggeration could be banned from politics AND all forms of social media the moment they strayed from the truth, then we'd all be a lot better off - and still in the EU - whilst not having a bunch of self-serving a$$holes picking up fat (at least to most of us) salaries (and pensions).

Read squarepost’s original post.
Of course, the referendum was a failure. Nobody’s arguing that, we’ll I’m not anyway.

No disagreement there.

If (when) the SNP get elected with an increased majority in the Holyrood elections their policy is to legislate for and hold an Independence referendum no matter what Boris says.  

Robert Bruce didn't beat Edward the first time.  He stuck at it.

Won't that just result in an attempted Unilateral Declaration of Independence and with the only possible resolution via the UN and the Right to Self-Determination? 

That’s not going to happen, and if they force it through it’ll be illegal and the Scottish government will be put behind bars.

In the end if Boris is unreasonable there is not going to be a path to independence within UK laws passed by English MPs in London.

My view is at some point the Holyrood Parliament is going to have to claim legitimacy based on the democratic votes of the people of Scotland (as opposed to devolved power from the UK) and standing as the successor to the Scottish Parliament which signed off the Treaty of Union to withdraw from the treaty. 

I don't think the SNP are at that point yet.  Their policy is to legislate for a referendum and fight the UK government in the courts.  It could be that they are just smarter than me and they are getting to the same point in a way which brings more of the electorate with them.

They can claim all they want,

At the end of the day the UK Parliament can just scrap the Scottish Parliament and put Scotland under direct rule with a simple majority vote in Westminster if they want to.

Everybody seems to predict that Scottish independence is inevitable.

In my view it is the end of Scottish devolution that is inevitable.

Maybe wait to see what Lady Carmichael says?

That would not exactly be a good starting point from which to go into negotiations on a settlement, would it?

A cursory glance at very recent history shows that what the leaving side think they will get out of a settlement and what they actually get out of a settlement bear no similarity to each other.

rUK, like EU, would rightly base their position on the premise that leaving is inextricably linked to losing the benefits of staying in. Scotland would be in no position to demand anything from rUK. Scotland has nothing significant to offer rUK in a quid pro quo for what Scotland would seek to get out of it. 

What she says, ultimately, doesn’t matter. Even if there was any legal basis for an unilateral indyref (and I am quite sure there isn’t), the Westminster Parliament, with a simple majority vote, can just make it unlawful, or place Scotland under direct rule.

I am afraid, the Scottish government has no leverage and no bargaining power, nothing. 

The second half of one of the recent New statesman podcasts "woke like this" covered whether it was politically feasible (or likely) for Boris to carry on just denying a referendum. Their views weren't quite what I'd expected, I think it's worth a listen. I can't find a link but it's easily findable on Spotify, apple podcasts etc.

Might solve the issue in the short term, but it won’t stop the noise. This has been a campaign decades in the making. Just takes an opposition party in Westminster to put reestablishing devolution back on the table and we’ll be back to exact where we are now.

Who cares about the noise ? Scotland can continue voting SNP, Westminster can continue not giving a damn.

There's nothing simple about it.  

I don't think the English nationalists could actually be arsed to risk kicking off an Ireland or Catalonia style conflict and losing trade deals with the US and EU just to keep Scotland by force.  Their English exceptionalism narrative will lean them towards thinking Scotland costs them money and they are well rid of it.

To be honest I don't trust any opinion piece on this.
And the facts are, I don't see any prospect of having any  UK government that would have anything to gain from letting Scotland have a vote, and there is almost nothing to lose from banning one from happening.

The only reason they had one in the first place is because Cameron thought he would win by a large margin an crush the SNP forever. They will never make that mistake again.

The only situation in which I envisage Scottish indepdence as a possibility is if the English electorate demanded it. 

This would be indeed the only possibility in which I envisage Scottish indepdence: the English electorate would need to be so fed up with it that they just want rid of it.

But that seems unlikely, in no small part because if Scotland started costing too much or be a pain, they would put in under direct rule, or cut funding, which they control. And that'll be that.

This isn't like Catalonia which actually had constitutional protection (we have none) and economic leverage (we don't have as much)

The first thing is there will be a fight in the courts about the competence of the Scottish parliament.  Nobody will get put behind bars.  The question is complicated and I've seen an opinion from a QC which says the Scottish Government has the authority to hold an advisory independence referendum.

It's got exactly the same leverage as many other nations which achieved independence.

Most if these other nations that have achieved independence did so mostly either 

1) because they achieved it by force

2) because the UK government saw them as a political or economic cost

Option 1) is unnacceptable, and the conditions for 2) do not exist.

It doesn’t matter. Suppose a judge says Scotland can organise it, the UK Parliament can just pass a law making it explicitly unlawful.

So you still believe it to be possible? As I said earlier, it only takes an opposition party to see its route to power through support for a vote and we’re back to where we are. Independence supporters don’t care if it’s Scotland that leaves or whether England kicks us out. The outcome is the same, independence. 

Opposition ? What opposition ? 

Who the hell knows what Johnson will do / say, if indeed he is still PM in 12 months time or whenever. He will do /say whatever he thinks will maintain his / the tories power and popularity, and if granting a scottish referendum looks to him like it will achieve this, he will be all in favour of it. 

If we have a different PM by then, then its a completely different ball game.

edit - i say this not in jest or to bait TiE, but because after a successful indyref it is most likely the snp will fade away or morph into something else, and the party most likely to fill the void would be labour (the tories are dead in scotland), so getting rid of a number of potential labour seats at westminster would be very much in his sights.

A bit disingenuous to say they are dead when a 1/4 of the population voted for them in the last election?

It will be interesting to see how the new found teeth in the press will deal with the SNP bun fight that is Salmond vs Sturgeon. One of them lied, under oath. That's a pretty big story and the SNP look on shaky ground - the usual enforced "never question the party" line will be heavily tested as there is a split as to who out of the two to support.

What would be interesting is to see the % of Scottish nationals in England and Wales who want independence.. 

It's certainly the case that the political landscape would change after independence, but there will be a place for a centre-right party. The Tories are the second biggest party at Holyrood, and if any party is dead in Scotland, it is Labour which has fallen to a position of little influence or relevance.

Sadly, the problem that affects all Scottish parties is a woeful lack of ability on the part of the MSPs. 

Whatever happened to the political  power houses that Scotland use to produce- the Alistair Darlings or the Gordon Browns or John Smith and so on etc etc.. Not that long ago and seem from a different age.

Could ask the same question of England, and possibly even more widely across the globe.

One argument for independence is to get all the talent back from Westminster.

Some pupils from my school once got shown round Holyrood by Alex Salmond when he was First Minister after winning a competition. He bemoaned the lack of talent, saying that he could make a better case for the Union than the opposition were.

Brexit happened, it has come to define British political identity. 

There isn’t much space in that for Scottish politicians (or Scottish people in general)

I agree with that.

Reflects the pull of London. That happens to alot of the youthful talented from the North of England. Its not a particularly Scottish issue.

?!?!?!?

That rather assumes there is any in Westminster. I don't see much evidence for that. 

I disagree. The lack of ability in Holyrood (or Westminster, for that matter) predates Brexit.  

There is obviously plenty of space for Scottish politicians in Holyrood. The sad fact is that there is very little political ability there.

I don’t think it’s any worse than anywhere else, really.

I personally find the Scottish political process much better. More substance and less spin and theatrics.

However in terms of political « talents » it’s very subjective to judge, I don’t see why there would be a massive difference. I don’t necessarily want my politicians to be exclusively talented at politics either.
I expect mostly them to be good leaders more than anything else.

Whats the point in being a politician in todays democratic set up? Its a useless occupation and no wonder there is a dearth of talent.

In opposition your are powerless and are confined to criticising the Government of the day.

In Government you get panned on a daily basis by the opposition and the media depending on the colour of their masthead.

There are no winners. Everyone has got an axe to grind. Everyone has a sob story. Its bullshit politics and we all lose. Look at America, Trump v Biden. Is that the best on offer? Johnson, Corbyn, Starmer, that idiot running the Lib Democrats, they're all useless because they can never deliver what they promise. There's a lot to be said for fixed term Dictatorships. Democracy is broken. 

I’m trying to imagine how that would work?

Democracy just has a scale problem. It doesn’t scale to big state, and that is what we have done.

Political decision making should be pushed to the lowest subunit where it is practical. 
 

Isn’t elective dictatorship pretty much the current system ?

Minimum 10 year terms to start off with. 5 years is too short to impose a political agenda. Paternal/benevolent dictatorships, if managed properly, can work.

"A benevolent dictatorship is a government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but is perceived to do so with regard for benefit of the population as a whole, standing in contrast to the decidedly malevolent stereotype of a dictator who focuses on their supporters and self- .."

But is that what Wanderer100 is advocating? Surely a true dictatorship wouldn’t involve elections or a fixed term?

Examples from history?

I would agree with some of that. Westminster spin and theatrics is hideous, and treats the electorate with contempt. We certainly don't have the same yah-boo disgrace of House of Commons debates and PMQs. I'm not sure about the substance. 

There isn’t a hard delimitation as to what constitutes a dictatorship, it’s a more of a continuum across several dimensions.

In my view, a system in which a government for which less than the majority of the people have voted for can effectively pass any law it wants without any restriction, qualifies at least as a milder form of dictatorship.

But if you look back further than the last election, you will see that the percentage of the vote is pretty well what it was 30 - 35 years ago, having dipped lower in the intervening period. Other than that, pretty consistent. In the last 10 - 15 years, when independence has become much more of a hot potato, and since the establishment of the devolved Holyrood administration labour have lost out far more significantly to the SNP.  It is much more in the tories interests at westminster to have as many seats as possible out of labours grasp.......

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1057795/scottish-election-results/

I dont think its important to those who want independence. They know that the SNP is a temporary phenomenon until independence is won. There is no point in supporting Salmond, he's yesterdays man. Its the party and the hope of independence that their supporters want. 

It would indeed. 

If you care to look you will find examples. 

That’s just lazy. If you’re being genuine, as opposed to just expressing frustration I was interested in your definition of benevolent and beneficial.

Sounds like you just wanted to sound off. Which is fair enough. It’s pretty much what the internet is for.

Some would argue that this is what you have at the moment in the UK.

There again the electorate is remarkably ignorant about questioning what is capable of being delivered and also listening to what is being said.

I would suggest if you believe anything that is" promised" then you might need to step back and have a think and talk to others and question and listen.Brexit is the classic one at the moment.

The UAE perhaps?

You imply that its a given that a law would pass. That is far from the case. Especially as Johnsons judgement on matters is increasingly questioned. 

Oh come on. If you want examples then do some research. If you can't get bothered then that make you equally as lazy. I'll give you Kemal Ataturk as a starter though .

If you put forward an argument, the onus is on you to defend it and document it.

I won't start about the 'paternal' bit, but benevolence is subjective. From recent history and indeed current times, off the top of my head; Tito's Yugoslavia, Cuba, Oman. If one was so inclined, Iran, Gadafi's Libya, any number of Gulf and middle-east states and 'stans, and so many others might qualify.

One problem with fixed term dictatorships is that it becomes very easy for that fixed term to be defined as 'until my death whereupon my son or other named successor takes over'. 

If course it would pass. 100%. He has got a big majority of yes men.

Happy to accept being lazy myself. Never read much about Turkey, not a place I’d ever visit, so that was interesting thanks.

That was my point, I wouldn’t view many, if any, of those as benevolent.

Most « benevolent » dictators would typically seek to change the system so that it becomes democratic. So really it valid only if we are talking about a transition from one system to another.

Ultimately it's what Sturgeon does that counts and it doesn't look to me like she can capitalise on her moment. It's in Johnson's interests to keep Scottish independence festering past the next election for several reasons which leaves Sturgeon only poor options and big talk unless we believe the courts will take this out of Johnson's hands. I don't.

jk

And if they were to actually go the whole hog and become independent that way, then Spain for one would veto Scotland's potential membership of the EU because they would be totally against setting a precedent for either Catalonia or the Basque region to follow.

But they won't do it if it's non binding and that's by far the most likely option pre GE2024. A non-binding win for independence would leave them looking utterly impotent as successive Westminster government's kicked it down the road, a loss would squander any opportunity to secure a binding vote should GE2024 leave them holding the balance of power in Westminster.

jk

Any "opinion" from a QC isn't worth the paper it's written on - it's nowhere near the same as a legal judgement after court proceedings and Appeals.

Whatever the view anyone has on the subject, then I am absolutely certain that you could find a QC who would vouch for that view as being perfectly legally correct.

I am also equally absolutely certain that you could find a QC who would vouch for the opposite.

QC's are like prostitutes **, they will pander to your whims and declare you to be right in all things - but all they are doing is making sure they get your money.

** Paraphrasing from "Rumpole of the Bailey" I hasten to add !!!!! 

Starmer is in charge now, NOT Corbyn (thank God).

Agreed which is why I submitted Ataturk as an example. 

This is a separate issue although for me and many others it is the primary reason for leaving the UK. Much is down to the courts. Spain has said that if Scotland gained independence through constitutional means it would not veto an application to join the EU, and many senior EU sources have said a variety of things along the lines of Scotland being fast-tracked/brought to the front of the queue. However that and all the assertions that Scotland won't be able to join are for now not much more than hot air. Many factors, most of them unpredictable and insufficiently understood, at least by most people on here, myself included, are in play.

Of course, there's no way Sturgeon would want those people to vote.

Imagine the situation, assuming Scottish independence, of ALL the scots-born military personnel being removed from the UK (but now RUK) and being sent back north of the border to become he new Scottish military. Scotland has way over its' "quota" of members of the military compared to RUK, and its' military requirements would be way less than its' numbers - so mass redundancies would be required. Where would this new country find its' redundancy money for these people, and what would be the situation with hundreds (or thousands ?) of ex-military roaming Glasgow/Edinburgh with no money, no home, and a "bone to pick" with the locals ??

And then there's all the politicians in England who are Scots**, can't see them voting themselves out of a cushy number and into a "sacking" - even if they are few in number.

There's a reason people leave Scotland - they can make a better living "abroad", and they'd pretty well all hate to find they had to apply for residency in the same way as someone from (for example) Chile or China. After all, Brexit was (more than) partly based around "keeping those nasty foreigners from taking our jobs", and Scots would become, overnight, "those nasty foreigners who HAVE our jobs".

** Strangely, whilst there are a number of Scots who represent ENGLISH constituencies, there appears to be a dearth of English representing Scottish constituencies - now I'm not one to point the finger, but that might tend to indicate that one of the two "nations" is a trifle more xenophobic than the other.

I suggest you obtain a copy of a book by Aristotle (yes -that ancient Greek bloke) entitled "The Politics" in which this system is laid out.

In some Greek societies, a "Dictator" was elected, with complete power, but for a fixed term, and with NO chance of extending that term or being allowed to run for that office again. It actually worked.

But that was in ancient Greece, and the likelihood of anyone elected in such a manner nowadays, with potential access to todays military personnel (with their hardware !), actually stepping down when they're supposed to, is remote. You only have to look at the way Trump "prevaricated" on handing over to understand this. Putin of course, will only hand over power from his "cold dead hands" to quote Charlton Heston (and the sooner Putin does die the better).

Spoiler! No point in reading it now.

The "Conservative & UNIONIST Party" currently has a majority of around 80. Whilst I have no faith in Johnson's judgement on literally anything, he still has this majority.

Option 1 is what happens when countries try to impose their will by force on a population which rejects them and things escalate.   It is the outcome of your 'just pass a law in Westminster and you can do whatever the f*ck you like' idea.  

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/28/a-rocky-route-to-a-scottis...

Interesting article...

An opinion from a QC tells you that there is a legal case that can be made and often what the counter arguments might be and an idea of how likely the argument would be to prevail in court.

Plenty of legal issues are clear cut.  This isn't one of them.

But you should - after all, we've got nothing else to do for the foreseeable future .......

You say they won't do it.  The policy of the party is they will.

If she gets a Holyrood majority and does not use it to aggressively pursue independence Sturgeon will get kicked out by the party members.

I'm sure a lot of Brexiteers referenced WW2 and beating the Germans. 

Think about the company you keep. 

Good post, spot on.

SNP are inherently racist.

I think the passage of time actually makes a big difference. The Bannockburn thing has been used good humouredly at sporting events for along time. There are still people around who remember WW2 and lost relatives in it; it is much more raw.

True

Not true.

No they are not. There are certainly undesirable xenophobic elements (and they disgust me when I stumble on their social media bubbles), but the SNP is firmly internationalist and outward looking.

And then you get Joanna Cherry, and then for sure the SNP will never get my vote again.

I try to stay away from these threads because of remarks like that. I'm not surprised to read it on here but I am surprised to see it from you. Can you qualify that?

FWIW, I joined the SNP when A50 was signed. EU membership and escaping brexit britain aside I have no particular loyalty to it. There are a small number of petty minded nationalists and other assorted bigots in the party but I'd wager no more than the other main parties and far less than the tories. The internationalist outlook and stated aims of increasing immigration and the efforts made to keep our EU nationals is hardly the mark of a racist party.

Out of interest,  what do you have against Joanna Cherry?

95% of British ex patriates voted to remain apparently. There were calls to remove the 15 year rule at the time to allow more British people living abroad the vote. 

I actually didn't realise that Scottish nationals living in the UK weren't able to vote. Makes even more sense that they should be able to as they live in the country that's going to be directly affected. 

I don't remember SNP saying that UK expats should have been excluded from the EU referendum. Does anyone else? 

The problem is that there is no such well defined thing as a Scottish National. 

True

Not true.

Correct, the SNP are not racist, they are anti English, so Xenophobic, not racist.

I think we are very tolerant of other races in Scotland. 

I used to work with some pretty rough lads. I can assure anyone reading this that the "cottage classes" are not shy about voicing their anti English views. 

Equally, I've met many English champagne socialists, toffs and blue bloods who look at the Scots as nothing more than street dogs. Maybe they are Zoophobic rather than Xenophobic. 

There are far more anti English Scots than anti Scottish English people. Mainly, the former are the so called downtrodden, who perceive they are hard-done-by by the UK government and have a gripe around some battles that happened hundreds of years ago.

A good friend recently researched his family tree to discover his entire heritage from just 3 generations ago were English. He's an ardent SNP-ist. Confused the hell out of him. 

They are not anti-English and they are not xenophobic.

How can you possibly know that??? Please cite your evidence and I’ll stand corrected. Otherwise I’ll just assume your trolling/fishing again.

Thanks for that post. It's convinced me to switch off off-belay and the pub and stay away. 

Most welcome.

What a joy your conversations must be. 

"Its forecast to rain". 

Please cite your evidence.

It's cold today.

"Please cite you evidence".

Have you ever, ever, ever met any? 

Seriously?

Tom in Edinburgh.

I rest my case.

“Ultimately the bond of all companionship, whether in marriage or in friendship, is conversation, and conversation must have a common basis, and between two people of widely different culture the only common basis possible is the lowest level.”

So I’ll just assume you’re trolling again. Hey ho, whatever floats your boat.

Yes. Some of the most ardent Nationalists I know are English.

There are anti-English nationalists, but I'm not even sure Tom is one of them really.

So true. The media fails to capture their voices, thereby ensuring the debate gets reduced to Scots vs English. Rather than a nation seeking to escape a political system it feels trapped by.

So you just made it up then?

Mr Johnson has been doing his bit for the independence cause:

Johnson just had time to dodge questions on Desmond Swayne’s lockdown scepticism and “the teething problems” of his sellout of the Scottish fishing fleet before wrapping things up with a near incoherent summary of his day.

I quote verbatim: “If [the vaccine is] approved by the MHRA then we will have 60m doses of it by the end of this year for the whole of the British people. And so it’s a success for Scotland. Uh, it’s a success for, uh, Britain and, uh, it’s a success for Britain because it is a success for Scotland. It’s a success for Scotland because it’s a success for Britain.

“So, uh, I’m, uh, you know, it was very, very encouraging to see it. That’s, that’s … I may have done some other things as well while I have been here although I can’t immediately recollect what they are. It’s been an action-packed day and always a joy to see you.”
 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/28/boris-johnsons-scotland-tr...

It’s easy to copy and paste quotes. Oscar is one of my favourites.

It is, that’s why I did it. We going to keep this going?

It’s an online forum. Not a science paper. Discussion (in real life) doesn’t always come with back up evidence. 

My point is, whatever she says now, the most effective way for her to pursue independence probably isn't aggressively. Do you elect her to be aggressive or effective?

Jk

Unlikely 

Ok. You hang up.

Some of the most ardent Scottish nationalists are English? Well I must bow to your knowledge. Learn something every day and all of that.

But I would like to think you had a good reason to think it was a valid statement.

I want her to be as aggressive as f*ck.   Covid and Brexit are the perfect storm and she needs to pile in and get Scotland the out of the UK and back into the EU before the Tories do more damage. 

The long slow path to independence is good in theory but I have had enough right now.  Also the c*nts in London can see it coming and they will neuter Holyrood before it is successful. 

No, but expect bullshit claims to be called out.

Yep, I know a few. I even know a Welsh and a Irish ones.

Well I am more likely to vote for it if is unaggressive and measured. I think it is essential to learn from the divisiveness of Brexit; I hope Scotland is better than that.

Born in Scotland? I'm sure a definition will be worked out very quickly if there is independence.

Do you not agree, or do you think anyone living outside of a independent Scotland on the day they theoretically leave the union will immediately cease to be Scottish? Genuine question. They've denied these people the vote so who knows right? 

https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/839858790551932928/photo/1

That's a nice dodge but a dodge nonetheless. 

I've no idea how citizenship will work, but it is one of quite a few questions I'll want answered  before voting for independence, preferably in a confirmatory referendum.

Hmm if the SNP will go for that. As with the Brexiteers they will most likely argue that if they seek a confirmatory referendum then the UK will negotiate for a poor deal for Scotland in order to deter people voting for the confirmation. 

After seeing how Brexit has unfolded I don't think SNP will risk two votes, there's a lot of people who might change their minds. 

At the last referendum the position was as follows. BBC as don't know where it is in the white paper which is still online.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25102073

• Consider British citizens habitually resident in Scotland as Scottish citizens.
• Make citizenship by descent available to those whose parent or grandparent qualifies for Scottish citizenship.
• Permit dual citizenship with the UK.

Any such move would be a few months away at earliest. The Covid deaths, Brexit effect, PPE blatant corruption are not going away, quite the opposite. If you take a step back his position is already in effect untenable. If still there the pressure will be extreme, no vaccine or money printed is going to save him. A blatant move to make or change a law to block democratic will is not guaranteed complete Tory support in that situation. Even if he is replaced by then the new leader will be under international scrutiny and such a move will not be popular especially with UK needing friends even more than now. 

It's a certainty that a Tory government would refuse to make any compromises at all in negotiations if they knew there would be a confirmatory referendum.  Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is their main tactic.  Tories went knocking on pensioner's doors last time and told them they would not get a pension if Scotland became independent.

In reply to

Do you think the Tory English electorate will care if they block an Indyref ?

Personally, I don’t.

In English Tory circles, devolution is considered a joke, and Holyrood - if they know it exists at all - is considered a toy parliament they barely tolerate, so that the Scots - themselves considered sub-humans - can play at pretending they have their own democracy.

No one abroad will really care, and the UK government doesn’t really care that much about how it is seen abroad anymore, in any case.

There is no realistic path to independence within the decade. It wouldn’t even matter if 90% of the Scots wanted it, it matters even less with 55%.

That, plus the fact that it would be a bad idea.

I think a fair proportion of England would happily wave goodbye to Scotland tomorrow, just to hear the end of it. But they'd expect Scotland to make an immediate clean break, no hanging onto the pound, or cherry picking this and that. 

I don't think we'd necessarily have any say over that.  Plenty of examples of countries having their own currency but tying it to parity with a neighbouring larger economy.  They already have Scottish bank notes that are worth exactly what Bank of England ones are.  I don't see what we could do about that after independence.

Whether they'd have to join the Euro as a condition of rejoining the EU is a different question. 

I’m hoping for this too. Mostly because I want to see the Scottish parliament scrapped by Westminster and I think it will need aggressive moves by the SNP to justify it.

An end to Welsh and Scottish devolution is a much more likely outcome than independence for Scotland.

Yes, I agree, they wouldn't care that much *if* Scotland left, they may even welcome it.

However

1) They wouldn't care much if a Tory government was actively blocking a referendum from happening.
2) If they are fed up with Scotland, more likely than waving it goodbye - which after all woudl be a massive blow to British nationalism -  they are more likely to seek to place it under direct rule. Mattmurphy's comment above echoes that sentiment.

Scotland is stuck in the UK, whether they like it or not. There isn't much they can do.
It's not democratic. It's not fair. But it's reality. Better get on with it. 

Yep. Although here is nothing preventing any country from using the pound.

But that's history. You could say the same about when Edinburgh was part of Northumberland, or Winchester was the English capital in the kingdom of wessex. Those were great times (if you ignore the vikings, war, starvation, disease...), let's rewind the clock back to a time that suits......

Do you move in English Tory circles?

I just listen and observe.

Perhaps the SNP will have learnt a valuable lesson from that and may not be so woolly next time in their arguments on the economy, the £, declining oil revenue. After all its a natural reaction of voters to be concerned about the potential economic impact on their lives.Politicans will naturally play on those strengths/weaknesses.Oh and you mean campaigners for the No to independence- it was not just the Tory party.

Sorry, I am not sure what is point you are trying to make or even what is the logical connection with the post you replied to.  

Yep, we shall not forget the useful idiots in Labour and the LibDem.

So I chose my word poorly while in a hurry. I am happy to retract that (not a common phenomenon on social media) and apologise.

SNP are xenophobic. 

I am 100% happy with that choice of word.

But you will always come out with the same view regardless.

But you are 100% wrong.

That's what we've just been doing in England. It's great - we've got Spitfires and Vera Lynn or is it Nelson and HMS Victory? Or perhaps the Black Death?  

I'm having so much fun that I sometimes get confused as to quite when in our illustrious past we've gone back to.

I don’t think so. My political views have changed dramatically over the past decade. Some things I have become more certain, but most I have become less certain.

The main reason I find UKC useful is because it’s actually quite a diverse community, and unlike other social media, anonymity makes it more likely for people to express their genuine views.
 

So you learn a lot about what and how people actually think, it’s a imperfect but decent proxy to tap into the Zeitgeist.

I have to say the past 5 years on UKC have been particularly interesting. The way politics have shifted is phenomenal.

I’m interested to hear why a non-resident of Scotland wants that?

I think there is an element of the SNP that is xenophobic. However, I don't believe the SNP have xenophobia baked into their ethos. Unlike the nationalist parties in England, I think the leadership of the SNP recognise the value of immigrants and the contribution they can make to the country. I hope this continues to be the case and that Scottish nationalism does not go down the same ugly route as it has in England. 

The snp seem to think it all went wrong in 1706 and want to wind back the clock. 

Ha ok, got what you meant, thanks.

Well, respectfully, I don’t think you really understand Scottish politics to make such a comment, it couldn’t be further from the truth IMO.

Quite so. Last time, the proposals regarding the pound and the wider economy were woefully inadequate. Like it or not, Scotland is going to have to have a good look at what it can and cannot afford, regardless of independence.

Advocates of independence who also favour membership of the EU will also have to have a far more robust response when explaining how Scotland might rejoin the EU given the state of its finances in relation to the convergence criteria. 

Well of course. I'm sure you could use your superior intellect to try and come across more condescending, that was pretty weak by your standards. 

Ps. I'm 25% Scottish if such a thing exists (russell), I've lived in Scotland, worked there, have friends etc on both sides of the debate, there is no escape from it. I've a rough idea what's occuring, but everyone has their own view and motivation. For sturgeon, just like salmond, it's their personal hatred of anything south of the border, their desire to be the one in power. 

My view is that devolution hasn’t really achieved anything and complicates the political debate.

Key points are:

- poor educational outcomes in Wales and Scotland compared to England

- poor health outcomes in Scotland especially compared to England 

- Covid rule differences create confusion

Politically I find it infuriating that the SNP moan endlessly about Westminster when they get so much money through the Barnet formula. 
 

If the Scottish parliament was scrapped it would end the Scottish independence debate for a generation at least as their would be no mouth piece for it. The politicians could focus on actually helping people rather than plotting their next referendum.

You’ve raised this point a number of times in these debates.

For clarity, there is no other point in time where a legal document exists which could be ‘reversed’ allowing Scotland to claim independence.

Thanks. I would likely disagree on all those points so won’t argue them. But interesting to hear your point of view. 

Reply to Alyson30

In that its driven by bots and agitators with fake profiles and dubious objectives?

I don't know. Can the act of union be repealed? 

The other way to achieve that would be to get independence - no more moaning about the Union; just get on with it.

Massive void at Westminster too, the ground that the late Conservative Party held is vacant.

We've seen some recently but although they are an annoyance, I don't think they have massively changed the forum.

It’s a legal document. I’m no lawyer, but that’s my understanding of the argument from long term SNP member friends.

Very funny.

Sorry, but I've been listening to Scottish politicians for the most part of two decades.
Going back to the golden days prior to 1706 is not really a political narrative I've heard tons of.

As far as I can tell the political narrative is more along the lines of wanting the be a modern small European independent nation.
You can have different view on it, say it's unachievable, undesirable, or deluded, but that is pretty much the narrative they peddle and have been peddling for more than a decade.

The idea that they want to go back to some pre-1706 golden era is frankly bizarre.

It did all go wrong in 1706.  The English coerced the treaty of union with a threat to cut off trade and bribed the Scottish negotiators for good measure.    The bribery in itself should be enough to invalidate the treaty.  They haven't even abided by the clauses in the treaty which limited their authority in Scotland which is another reason to argue the treaty is now invalid.

Scotland does not want to wind back the clock.  We want to be a modern European nation.  We already have proportional representation, we will have a written constitution, we will be active members of the European Union and we will very likely abolish the monarchy and aristocracy. 

 England are the ones trying to turn back the clock to the days of the British Empire.

Well they’re not opinions, they’re facts, so you’d struggle to argue anyway.

Education:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-50642855

Health:

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/06/scotland-effect-why-life-exp...

Covid:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/05/22/different-lockdown-rules-in-the-...

But it’s good to know that these things don’t matter when there’s the prospect of a divisive referendum on the horizon.

Fair enough, i do come on here for similar reasons. It does represent a good cross section of opinion of the whole UK and sometimes beyond in a community i am familiar with. When it comes to Scotland and independence though a lot of comment gets to me. To pretend that we are within some sort of normal continuation of UK politics needs to stop. How did we get here to a place where continual lies and opportunism are the new normal and any morality left in UK governance is completely crushed. Johnson and his gangsters literally lie every time they speak. Almost nothing about Brexit was true and taking it on the chin with Covid has turned our natural island advantage into the highest death toll in Europe. Now Scotland is to be grateful for borrowed money and a fantastic worlds best vaccine. They are using a pandemic to openly loot the Treasury of multiple billions and sharing it in their own circles while people watch or take to the street to protest about lizard people. For anyone to question the right and the desire to end a supposed voluntary union under these circumstances is completely unreasonable and i have zero tolerance. For those saying direct rule from London is the right thing i have less than zero.  

I don't understand that idea. The quest for independence is a continuation of the quest for devolution. Devolution happened without a Scottish parliament, or any kind of Scottish representative body. Supporters of Scottish indepdence do not need a parliamentary mouthpiece to make their case. The quest for independence would not go away if the Scottish parliament were abolished. If anything, it would strengthen support for independence - many Scots are more that a little fed up with being told what's good for them by an English-dominated Westminster which has for some years being travelling in quite a different political direction. 

I wholeheartedly agree but that is unfortunately the shit sandwich we are being served. And now we have to eat it.

Rom, I seem to recall that after indyref you said that you had changed your view and that splitting up the U.K. was an error. Have you now changed back?

(not a bad thing to change views)

also, how are the Lib Dem’s and Labour useful idiots? They just support a different approach to how these isles should be run.

Can’t be arsed finding sources to counter your other points but here you go on health.

https://www.businessforscotland.com/scotlands-nhs-outperforms-the-rest-of-t...

If you think there hasn’t been division for a very long time then im not sure what rock you’ve been living under.

Can you provide a reference from a publication which is not unashamedly patrisanly pro-independence? I'd have about as much faith in the objectivity of that as reading the opposing case in the Telegraph.

I am finding this a real problem in making my mind up about independence; it seems very hard to find anything written from an impartial viewpoint.

Me too. No I can’t. Apologies, I was playing Devil’s advocate. I doubt impartial evidence even exists. All evidence will be skewed either for or against whatever agenda the publisher wishes to pursue.

I agree. I’m pretty solid in how I would vote, but I’m fairly confident that nothing good will come from whichever outcome is arrived at. 

That doesn't say anything about health outcomes. It's merely a statement of a few facts about numbers GPs and nurses, and about waiting times. It may be that more GPs and nurses are needed in Scotland because our population is less healthy than south of the border, or because our population seeks medical attention at the merest sniffle. 

To use your phrase, if you think there hasn’t been a problem with alcohol and drugs in Scotland for a very long time then I'm not sure what rock you’ve been living under.

I also feel the same about business for scotland - that said the anti-independence/British nationalist stuff doesn't really ever get round to addressing the claims they make going straight to the "it's all the SNP's fault for the state of the nation's health"

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/06/scotland-effect-why-life-exp...

That link that goes into why the problem is bigger/older than scotgov - part legacy of direct Westminster control (predating devolution), part cultural swally...

I just find the whole thing thoroughly depressing......and I suspect I'm not alone. Arguing over who's politicians are least worst, doesn't exactly inspire me to defend the union, or to vote for independence.

I doubt anyone would dispute that. I was merely countering mattmurphy’s point that Scotland would be better off under direct rule from Westminster. Bearing in mind the alcohol issues you highlight predate devolution.

It’s a race to the bottom. Ready, steady.....

There are an awful lot of Scottish sports men and women who compete for the Scottish national teams, but are resident in England, and play for English clubs.

It seems unbelievable that the SNP should both deny these people a vote, and then expect them to continue competing for a Scotland that is now a foreign country to them in all practical aspects. Some might even find themselves unemployed, as they would become "foreigners" on English soil, and have to fight for a place in the quota of foreigners along with Africans and "other" Europeans in some sports. I don't see the Scottish Football League (or indeed any other sport) being capable of providing the extra level of employment that would be required overnight.

And I again bring up the position of all the members of the military, and indeed any Scots working in UK government occupations (along with their families), who are based all over the place. If Scotland leaves the UK, then their position becomes very awkward, being foreign nationals in a position of power and influence where foreign nationals are not normally allowed to be employed. For the military this can be even more of a problem, as accommodation goes with the job, and Scotland leaving the UK could well render them jobless, homeless, and destitute on the streets of Glasgow/Edinburgh/etc. when they are sent back home - because I'm pretty sure that there'd be little sympathy for them begging on the streets of England with a Scots accent AFTER Scotland left the UK.

Would an independent Scotland be able to afford pensions of a similar level to that enjoyed currently ?

I ask this because Sturgeon has been extremely good at promising all things to all men (and women), and claiming that everything will be rosy - with NO downsides.

I will admit that, if there was a vote in RUK tomorrow, regarding ejecting Scotland from the Union, that I would vote in favour.

NOT because I want a split, NOT because I want all my Scottish friends to be at risk of being deported by Priti Patel, NOT because any split would make any significant difference financially to individuals in RUK, NOT even because of the disparity when England is regarded as "equal" to each of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland with 4 seats at the table in sports when England has 83% of the population but only gets 25% of the voice.

I would vote that way just to shut up the likes of tom_in_edinburgh, who are intent on spouting any codswallop that purports to support their view - no matter how illogical and incorrect that may be.

I would support any measures that ensure the border is a solid one, that Hadrian himself would have been proud of, until those north of the border come crawling back , bankrupted once again by their own financial "whizzkids". But this time there'd be no warm welcome, no Barnett formula, no (over)equal representation on committees, and furthermore Scotland would be treated as just another part of the UK, because Scotland is only half the size (by population) as the English Midlands, which is itself only one sixth of England.

It did all go wrong for Scotland in 1706, that's why they joined the Union in the first place.

So for the sake of silencing a significant minority you’d happily throw the rest of us under the bus.

Thanks. I feel so ‘United’.

Yikes.. what a horrible comment. 

This "significant minority" have been going on for so long now, and in the process insulting anyone south of the border, without being called back by people such as you.

There comes a point when enough is enough, and their bluff needs to be called.

In a similar way, I regard anyone who voted Republican and for Trump in the USA election as, if not racist, misogynist, criminal con-artist themselves, certainly they are supporting these views. As such they have gone "beyond the pale".

It is isn't it. That's what tom_in_edinburgh and his like have made some of us feel like.

Isn't it about time the extremists in Scottish politics were called out for what they are - and booted out. We in England can't do it, It's up to you Scots to clean out the filth from your own stables.

It's called a "love bomb" I believe

Are you trying to turn me into a 'yes' voter? 

1. Our own PM has openly insulted the Scots. I don’t recall him being called out.

2. Care to qualify what you mean by “people such as you”?

Where should we send them? England?

No, not really, I still think that being outside of the UK would be sub-optimal, the problem is that being inside - the way it is now - is also sub-optimal.

My preference would be of a truly federal UK - with Holyrood a constitutionally permanent parliament. (You know, of the kind the No campaign had promised we would get)

But I see almost no chance of that happening.

As for EU membership, although it is a shame to have lost it, I think that UK membership is more important to Scotland, whether you like it or not. With the right devolution of powers, most of the bad things about Brexit could be remediated. Again I don't see that happening either !

Yes, but they keep putting the other guys in power. You can have good ideas and still be an useful idiot.

I love these fantasies about Scotland 'crawling back', they really show what's thought of us.

Crawling back, eh? Like Ireland did? Or New Zealand? Canada? USA? Australia, maybe?

Get over yourself!

Indeed.  A lot of this thread stinks of assumed ownership. Mind you it worked fine with Ireland. Oh, wait... 

Surely without the SNP MPs labour would have a much better chance, given fptp?

Evidently, no.

Its so disappointing when i see someone on here marrying into a narrative that has its essence in the assumed right to be telling Scotland what it should be doing and laying down rules. It would fit right into the Daily Express comments section under an article about Scotland. It is littered with condescension and thinly veiled insult and ridicule. It bulldozes past even a hint of a thought as to how the UK might look from Scotlands point of view and even any simple or practical reasons why independence would be beneficial. Nicola Sturgeon has never said, and very few independence supporters believe, that self rule would immediately bring great rewards. To say it is intellectually lazy and it is said because in your mind it doesnt really matter if  its accurate. 

I like that, it could have saved me a lot of words.

Jesus, wind it in a bit. All the animosity for what? 

I'm extremely saddened to see the escalating fight over vaccines with the EU right now. Good for the UK to have actually gotten the procurement right, horrible to see open vitriol and sabre rattling between the two sides. There should be no pleasure in seeing a neighbour and an ally suffer. 

Give me time, I've been back at work.

Scots - the majority of reasonable ones, from whom I would appreciate an expression of revulsion regarding the extremists. These nutters are no different to the MAGA-morons, yet are tolerated. Continued tolerance of such views will lead you down the same path as the Republicans in the USA, who became overcome and effectively controlled by the extremists. Stop the rot NOW.

St Kilda.

I certainly wouldn't want them "crawling back" to the UK, rather apologising to all those they have knowingly lied to just to get their way.

Sturgeon has constantly stated that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK with its' taxes, that Scotland would be rich if it had control of the oil revenues, that Scotland owns 100% of the oil in the North Sea, and that the Scottish educational system (which gets more per capita from WESTMINSTER than  does England/Wales) is superior to the rest of the UK.

She also claims that independence would prevent Scotland being held back by England.

If that list isn't claiming "great rewards" then what is.

Take a long hard look at what you are posting. There are several people on this thread, and many others, who have expressed a positive attitude towards Scottish independence and a revulsion of nationalism, and I'll count myself as one of them. What you are posting is mostly nonsensical ranting and is also extremely offensive.

For myself, my prime motivation is to hopefully join the EU, but another is to distance my national identity from the isolationist, exceptionalist and increasingly ugly nationalist road that the UK as a whole, mainly led by Johnson's tories, is on.   

I appreciate this thread is pretty much dead now. But I thought you’d appreciate reading the comments on the Express news link below. And then maybe have a think about how the majority of English appear to tolerate ‘nutters’ and ‘extremists’ etc.

Let he without sin, and all that! 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1392564/scotland-news-nicola-sturge...