2nd Indy Referendum?

[Bubbles]

Depends on what you mean by moving on.   The Scottish parliament is moving on by asking for a second referendum.   Very democratic. 

On Brexit,  there are plenty of worries about hard Brexit.   It's possible that this is a bluff by the British government, as in actuality, they can't really just leave the EU, with no trade agreements at all.   Then just moving goods into Europe becomes difficult, hence the prediction of 30 miles queues at Dover, as trucks and documents have to be checked manually, (at the moment, all done electronically).   I suspect May is trying to get a softish Brexit through, without alarming the Ultras. 

So, challenging a hard Brexit is surely our democratic right, in fact, so is asking for another referendum.   

Nope, we have already voted, now the government in power tries  to turn that into reality.

[Bubbles]

Not to the use of Henry VIII clauses in passing any Gexit bills which was the context of the post you replied to.

We are living in a different age now, scrutinising the past for opt out is just sad.

[Nearly Sane]

We are living in a different age now, scrutinising the past for opt out is just sad.

Eh? It's the Govt using the use of the so called Henry VIII clauses to avoid parliamentary scrutiny that is being discussed. If you think that the lopt out and using then is wrong then you are agreeing with hetemyp's post and disagreeing with your own reply to it.

[Bubbles]

Eh? It's the Govt using the use of the so called Henry VIII clauses to avoid parliamentary scrutiny that is being discussed. If you think that the lopt out and using then is wrong then you are agreeing with hetemyp's post and disagreeing with your own reply to it.

I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.

To stay within the uk

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.

To stay within the uk

it's got nothing to do with Indyref either. It's about how the UK govt intends to use the Henry VIII clauses to avoid parliamentary scrutiny for Brexit decisions.

And since that referendum the majority of people voted in parties to the Scottish govt with manifesto promises to have a second referendum is there was a material change in circunstances such as a Brexit vote.

[Gordon]

I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.

To stay within the uk

Have to say Rose I suspect your perspective on Scotland arises from reading the Express or the Mail.

What matters now is that things have fundamentally changed thanks to the Tory government that you guys, not us, elected. TM might bleat on about us 'all pulling together' as we head towards the iceberg (or cliff, take your pick) - but sod that: some of us here in Scotland want out and fervently hope that the impending Tory-concocted disaster is sufficient to turn the tide.

You need to understand that some of us no longer want to be part of the UK, have no sense of loyalty towards the UK and we won't go sit quietly while Mother Theresa lectures us. The UK is finished, albeit some haven't realised this yet: the demise of Labour removes any (current) UK-wide alternative to a long-term Tory government that we don't vote for in any great numbers here in Scotland, and this can't be conveniently ignored.   

[Anchorman]

Succinctly put, Gordon. I'd add that many wouldn't shed a tear if the Union flag were consigned to the garbage heap of that history Rose doesn't care about. History, however, is important. It is the foundation for any nation, union, political ideology, etc; and without an understanding of history there is no real point in any nation, state, political ideology - or, for that matter, a moribund political union three centuries past its sell by date.

[Nearly Sane]

I think history has an effect that we can't ignore but ancient grudges are uninteresting to me. It's an accident of history has gat certain places end up with the accoutrements and decorations of a country. This is why the comparison of Maidenhead to Scotland by May is a category error. I also think that just because those attributes exist in Scotland is not sufficient reason for independence.

I would be much happier if we had had a 60% threshold for change on our previous referendums and indeed this one should it happen. And also that people are very clear on whether referendums are advisory or not. I would argue that with a higher threshold you have a much better case for making them binding.


I also find the idea that if you think something will be disastrous, your right to fight against that is somehow invalidated by a referendum, bizarre. But then we seem to have reduced political discussion and an understanding of our democratic process done to calling names. The entirety of the next few years are going to be just more echo chamber politics.

[Bubbles]

Have to say Rose I suspect your perspective on Scotland arises from reading the Express or the Mail.

What matters now is that things have fundamentally changed thanks to the Tory government that you guys, not us, elected. TM might bleat on about us 'all pulling together' as we head towards the iceberg (or cliff, take your pick) - but sod that: some of us here in Scotland want out and fervently hope that the impending Tory-concocted disaster is sufficient to turn the tide.

You need to understand that some of us no longer want to be part of the UK, have no sense of loyalty towards the UK and we won't go sit quietly while Mother Theresa lectures us. The UK is finished, albeit some haven't realised this yet: the demise of Labour removes any (current) UK-wide alternative to a long-term Tory government that we don't vote for in any great numbers here in Scotland, and this can't be conveniently ignored.   

I doubt it, I never buy or read the express or the mail.

Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

That's that!

People who lost think if they keep moaning and groaning they can overturn the will of the majority, it's not happening.

Brexit is going through because the majority voted for it ( I voted remain)  and Scotland is staying in the uk, again because most Scots voted for it.

It's done.

Lots of people in England didn't vote for the conservatives either, we have to put up with the winners if the ones we voted for lost.

Thats life.

[Gordon]

I doubt it, I never buy or read the express or the mail.

Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

That's that!

It isn't, no matter how much you think so since quite a few of us don't want to remain in a Tory-dominated UK, and as the disaster of Brexit unfolds I suspect more of us will take this view.

People who lost think if they keep moaning and groaning they can overturn the will of the majority, it's not happening.

The majority of Scots who voted want to remain part of the UK: this may be an inconvenient truth but it is true nonetheless, and as the details unfold issues such as any attempted power-grab by Westminster regarding controls returning from the EU will further increase the tension between Holyrood and Westminster (or more accurately the Tories we've rejected here). 

Brexit is going through because the majority voted for it ( I voted remain)  and Scotland is staying in the uk, again because most Scots voted for it.

It's done.

Trust me - it isn't done, and if you can't see that the landscape has changed since 2014 then your head is firmly stuck in the sand. Forget 2014, since that was when we were advised that if we wanted to remain in the EU we'd best remain in the UK - even you must see how that assurance now reads given where we are today.

Lots of people in England didn't vote for the conservatives either, we have to put up with the winners if the ones we voted for lost.

That will be because you don't have an option to do otherwise.

Thats life.

Certainly is, and of course 'life' isn't static. The UK is finished though, and it's now just a matter of how long it takes for us to lower the lifeboat and escape the disaster.

[Anchorman]

I think history has an effect that we can't ignore but ancient grudges are uninteresting to me. It's an accident of history has gat certain places end up with the accoutrements and decorations of a country. This is why the comparison of Maidenhead to Scotland by May is a category error. I also think that just because those attributes exist in Scotland is not sufficient reason for independence.

I would be much happier if we had had a 60% threshold for change on our previous referendums and indeed this one should it happen. And also that people are very clear on whether referendums are advisory or not. I would argue that with a higher threshold you have a much better case for making them binding.


I also find the idea that if you think something will be disastrous, your right to fight against that is somehow invalidated by a referendum, bizarre. But then we seem to have reduced political discussion and an understanding of our democratic process done to calling names. The entirety of the next few years are going to be just more echo chamber politics.

-
 Of course history cannot determine a nation's future, NS -thankfully, if one looks at Northern Ireland as an example.
The blood soaked past is no example for any succeeding generation.
We've had our fair share of blood as well, both from invader and internal struggles. In many ways they shaped who we are today.
The character of our nation, our attitude to issues which differ from those in Westminster - two examples being the centre-left nature of our mainstream politics and our more open attitude to immigration, for example.
We are what we are.
I've argued before that, had the religious, legal, educational and social structures been subsumed into those of the 'UK' in 1707, the nationhood of Scotland would have gradually died or morphed into the realms of tradition.
They were not, and, despite Empire and clearances offering opportunities for advancement - many of those unwilling opportunities - that undercurrent of nationhood persisted.
I suppose the flames were ignited, not on a shortbread tin, but in the fields of Flanders and the shipyards of the Clyde in 1916-19.
Churchill's sending of tanks into Glasgow,manned with English troops, the Scots being confined to barracks, didn't help the situation.
Since then that current of nationhood has risen exponentially.
Regardless of any second referendum, with a strong, legislative Holyrood, the divisions in the union will not go away, and the simmering estrangement which would exist as the years go on, regardless of which governments are in power, is not healthy for either side of the border.
We can't reverse history: Holyrood exists and will always seek more power regardless of which party governs it - that's the natural state of a small nation in bed with a larger one.
Independence will be tough - no tartan utopia - but in the long run, better for both sides of the border.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not really a fan of the grievance approach, what Churchill did is something that I think was wrong but the sane could have happened in Liverpool, and worse happened at Tonypandy. I agree that the maintenance of some separate Scottish institutions is central to the its continuance as a on nation and as as notion. Since we moved into the Democratic age, past the time when Dundas ran Scotland as his fiefdom, the tension between the structure and how the responsibility of it within the UK are what had lead us to where we are.

Tam Dalyell was right at warning Labour that devolution would exacerbate that tension rather than defuse it, but Tam o the Binns was, as often, acting as a Cassandra, warning people about taking actions that they had no choice but to take. The various attempts at dealing with the guddle, including the latest transfer of powers, are by nature of the UK structure piecemeal and not systemic. Many of the Yes voters I know have moved from a form of federalism to independence as the only choice. A few of my No voting friends see the problems but believe that we should move to the complete dismantling of the institutions that exist.


A combination of people randomly painting bits of the floor has created a divide and placed these divided sides into their respective corners. Neither side quite painted themselves there, but stuck they are.

[Anchorman]

Of course a grievance - perceived or otherwise - is unhealthy. Nevertheless I cited it as being made part of the pschyche which formed a radical stream in the '20's and '30's, blooming intio the 'Red Clydesiders' on the one hand, and the arts represented by the Lailyard school and McDairmid on the other. All three had elements of romanticism about them - of course - but nevertheless they are woven into the tapestry which now forms Scotland in 2017.

[JP]

Is there the stomach to do it all again? From what I have read the figure is hovering around the high side of 50% for those who do not want to see a second referendum at this time.

[Nearly Sane]

Is there the stomach to do it all again? From what I have read the figure is hovering around the high side of 50% for those who do not want to see a second referendum at this time.

That's very good phrasing. I am not sure there is the stomach for it, and yet the polls on voting intentions are still highly in favour of the SNP, which may change over this. As noted, given the manifesto promise, and the intransigence(which I think they had little choice in either)of the UK govt to the non referendum proposals as regards Brexit, the vote in the Scottish parliament was inevitable.

I think we need to be careful when looking at the numbers against a second referendum that this is part of the issue of representative democracy. MSPs and MPs are not there as delegates and the election of 2016 has provided a majority of members who were committed to a Indyref2 if there was a significant change in circumstances such as the Brexit vote. In part, this is why I think that any referendums should have a threshold for change much higher than 50% because it would be easier to argue that a 55% representation in Parliament would not 'feel' like enough.


I don't think, though, that the 'Not Now' line of the UK govt will be helpful in keeping that number opposed to a Indyref2 as high, as long as they propose an idea that it won't happen till after both current parliaments are reelected and for the foreseeable future after that. That said, I don't think their calculation is about that but as a holding strategy.

Rarely have local govt elections assumed such importance which is unfortunate because when local govt is looked on as an opinion poll on bigger issues, local govt inevitably suffers. May's speech at the Scottish spring conference indicated on it being some form of referendum on Brexit, Indyref2, and the UK and Scottish govts, which is an awful lot for a set of elections with a likely turnout of 40% to bear. Even assuming the febrile atmosphere nudges the turnout up, it's a farce to take too much out of it.

Now I think May, or rather her advisors, was making the calculation that the Tories are likely to do 'well' here but it's not the position I would have taken. The Tories are likely to do 'well' against their previous votes which was not far off their historic lows. This is the benefit from collapse of stout Labour party. If the SNP and Greens do well, then the mandate question would have been raised by May, and a further mandate for the referendum would have been decided, and that reads like a tactical error.

On current opinion polls, which for local elections have to be taken with a Lot's wife of salt, the above scenario is perfectly feasible. Of course these may change with people paying their council tax bills this week with the 10% increase in highest rated properties as a result of the Scottish govt, but then 75% of properties have no increase at all.

[Bubbles]

That's very good phrasing. I am not sure there is the stomach for it, and yet the polls on voting intentions are still highly in favour of the SNP, which may change over this. As noted, given the manifesto promise, and the intransigence(which I think they had little choice in either)of the UK govt to the non referendum proposals as regards Brexit, the vote in the Scottish parliament was inevitable.

I think we need to be careful when looking at the numbers against a second referendum that this is part of the issue of representative democracy. MSPs and MPs are not there as delegates and the election of 2016 has provided a majority of members who were committed to a Indyref2 if there was a significant change in circumstances such as the Brexit vote. In part, this is why I think that any referendums should have a threshold for change much higher than 50% because it would be easier to argue that a 55% representation in Parliament would not 'feel' like enough.


I don't think, though, that the 'Not Now' line of the UK govt will be helpful in keeping that number opposed to a Indyref2 as high, as long as they propose an idea that it won't happen till after both current parliaments are reelected and for the foreseeable future after that. That said, I don't think their calculation is about that but as a holding strategy.

Rarely have local govt elections assumed such importance which is unfortunate because when local govt is looked on as an opinion poll on bigger issues, local govt inevitably suffers. May's speech at the Scottish spring conference indicated on it being some form of referendum on Brexit, Indyref2, and the UK and Scottish govts, which is an awful lot for a set of elections with a likely turnout of 40% to bear. Even assuming the febrile atmosphere nudges the turnout up, it's a farce to take too much out of it.

Now I think May, or rather her advisors, was making the calculation that the Tories are likely to do 'well' here but it's not the position I would have taken. The Tories are likely to do 'well' against their previous votes which was not far off their historic lows. This is the benefit from collapse of stout Labour party. If the SNP and Greens do well, then the mandate question would have been raised by May, and a further mandate for the referendum would have been decided, and that reads like a tactical error.

On current opinion polls, which for local elections have to be taken with a Lot's wife of salt, the above scenario is perfectly feasible. Of course these may change with people paying their council tax bills this week with the 10% increase in highest rated properties as a result of the Scottish govt, but then 75% of properties have no increase at all.

Polls aren't much help because it depends who they ask.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/nicola-sturgeon-touch-scots-brexit-poll-shows-support-theresa/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/poll-shows-support-scottish-independence-rising-ahead-brexit/

The telegraph swings from one to another.

The problem with polls is you can give a false impression just by going to different areas to ask , or choosing a different age group.

I think most of it is just propaganda. So people get influenced to voting one way or another.

We had it with Brexit, we have it with the independence vote.

What the people vote at the end of the day, isn't really reflected in the polls.

I think too many people use polls to convince people to vote with the " majority" and the polls reflect what agenda the group citing them have.

Polls are useless at getting a good idea how people are going to vote, imo it's a bit of a con, by both sides of the issue.

Many Polls predicted Remain was going to win in Brexit.  The real outcome appeared to be a shock once the polls and propaganda was done.

It's the same with polls on the results of a second independence referendum.

TBH I don't trust any of the media, politicians or any of them to give an accurate picture of how people feel. It doesn't matter whether it's the snp or the lot at Westminster.

There is too much stuff put out by people with an agenda, be it media or governments, on both sides.

If the second vote gets granted, the only way we will know, will be by the actual vote.

All these speculations, most of it is propaganda either by one side or the other.

Polls are so abused they are pretty much worthless.

When it comes to politicians, of any stripe I'm just cynical.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting blog post from one No to Yes voter



http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?p=1496

[jeremyp]

I don't think the vast majority of people give a toss about history.
What matters is how people voted in the last referendum.

To stay within the uk

Referendums are not for all time Rose. People change their minds, new information becomes available, there are new people.

One of the main points that destroyed Alex Salmond's credibility in the last Indyref was his handling of the question of Scotland's relationship with the EU. Many people tore him to shreds on the basis of his unrealistic assertions. However, there was always the assumption that Scotland wanted to remain in the EU and staying in the UK would be the easiest way to make that happen. That assumption turns out to be false. Of course there is a legitimate reason to rerun the vote.

[jeremyp]

Polls aren't much help because it depends who they ask.

No shit Sherlock.

You don't think polling companies don't know this? They go to extreme lengths to try to make sure they poll a representative sample.

Many Polls predicted Remain was going to win in Brexit.  The real outcome appeared to be a shock once the polls and propaganda was done.

Probably not to the polling companies. The actual result was within the margin of error of the final polls.

[jakswan]

It isn't, no matter how much you think so since quite a few of us don't want to remain in a Tory-dominated UK, and as the disaster of Brexit unfolds I suspect more of us will take this view.

You have still failed to identify exactly what you don't like about the Tories as i recall. Are you sure you are not just chanting SNP slogans without first understand what they mean?

I think coherent arguments for Scexit are tribalistic nationalism, political diversity, cultural separation, economic benefits but you don't seem to subscribe to any of those.

The UK is finished though, and it's now just a matter of how long it takes for us to lower the lifeboat and escape the disaster.

Hey Jack Knave have a look in the mirror.

[Gordon]

You have still failed to identify exactly what you don't like about the Tories as i recall.

Well there is their history in Scotland, such as Thatcher's imposition of the poll tax, then there are the more recent issues from Cameron's spurious assurances to us in 2014, his putting the Tory party first by having the referendum, and of course the shambles of Brexit - and of course they only have one MP here!

Then there is local stuff, like the DWP seemingly closing job-centres here by looking at Google-maps, the sole Tory MP in Scotland (so the only option for Scottish Secretary) telling is what is best for us (which is highly ironic bearing in mind his sole Tory MP in Scotland position) and the unedifying sight of Ruth Davidson's recent conversion into Mother Theresa's pet poodle. 

So in addition to my settled disdain for the Tories the implosion of Labour just about everywhere seems to remove the possibility of any UK-wide alternative party of government for the foreseeable future, so  thanks to the voting patterns elsewhere in rUK Scotland is stuck with a permanent Tory government that has minimal support here - so no thanks.

[Jack Knave]

You have still failed to identify exactly what you don't like about the Tories as i recall. Are you sure you are not just chanting SNP slogans without first understand what they mean?

I think coherent arguments for Scexit are tribalistic nationalism, political diversity, cultural separation, economic benefits but you don't seem to subscribe to any of those.

Hey Jack Knave have a look in the mirror.

What? Why? Jaks are you feeling all right?

[Anchorman]

Scots MEP predicts break up of Britain if things continue as they are. (And, no, he is not an SNP MEP) http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15204625.Veteran_Labour_MEP___Scotland_will_split_from_UK_over_May_s_Brexit_approach_/

[jeremyp]

Well there is their history in Scotland, such as Thatcher's imposition of the poll tax, then there are the more recent issues from Cameron's spurious assurances to us in 2014, his putting the Tory party first by having the referendum, and of course the shambles of Brexit - and of course they only have one MP here!

Then there is local stuff, like the DWP seemingly closing job-centres here by looking at Google-maps, the sole Tory MP in Scotland (so the only option for Scottish Secretary) telling is what is best for us (which is highly ironic bearing in mind his sole Tory MP in Scotland position) and the unedifying sight of Ruth Davidson's recent conversion into Mother Theresa's pet poodle. 

So in addition to my settled disdain for the Tories the implosion of Labour just about everywhere seems to remove the possibility of any UK-wide alternative party of government for the foreseeable future, so  thanks to the voting patterns elsewhere in rUK Scotland is stuck with a permanent Tory government that has minimal support here - so no thanks.

So your main argument for breaking up a really successful union is that you hate the Tories.

[Gordon]

So your main argument for breaking up a really successful union is that you hate the Tories.

No - I recognise that my distaste for the Tories is personal but the reality is that there is now, compared to previously when Scotland returned a substantial number of Labour MPs, a Tory-dominated Westminster in the long-term that doesn't reflect the voting patterns here.

Then there are the actions of this Tory government to consider - Brexit being the obvious one.