The Scottish Politics thread

[BobKowalski]

…The SNP have barely attempted to tackle these issues, and so if people are still willing to back their push for independence, it suggests a level of partisan support and a suspension of critical thought.

No difference to Brexit. No one on the Brexit side gave any real thought to the future trading relationship with Europe, the Irish border question which has led to the UK imposing a customs border within our own borders, the cost of trade barriers which has impacted small business especially and at this crucial time in European affairs we are on the outside looking in when it comes to deciding the direction of the EU.

A suspension of critical thought that is looking increasingly worse with the passing of time.

 

[blueparrot]

It’s not really prejudice to identify the glaring holes in the independence argument, or indeed to highlight how the SNP have failed to address them.

Matters such as monetary policy arrangements, the lender of last resort, assuming the fair share of UK debt, the need for what would be practically unprecedented austerity to comply with the convergence criteria and that’s before we even consider the additional, formidable difficulties presented by the rest of the UK being outside of the customs union and single market.

The SNP have barely attempted to tackle these issues, and so if people are still willing to back their push for independence, it suggests a level of partisan support and a suspension of critical thought.

Or just different thought to yours. As support for independence is at 50% and SNP support is at about 36% it suggests support for independence isn't a one party issue and not every SNP voter will be an independence supporter.
You can suggest anyone supporting independence shows a lack of critical thought but that says more about yourself than 50% of Scots.Think you have a very blinkered view of a quite complicated relationship between Scots, SNP , and the independence debate.

 

[Saddleworth2]

It’s not really prejudice to identify the glaring holes in the independence argument, or indeed to highlight how the SNP have failed to address them.

Matters such as monetary policy arrangements, the lender of last resort, assuming the fair share of UK debt, the need for what would be practically unprecedented austerity to comply with the convergence criteria and that’s before we even consider the additional, formidable difficulties presented by the rest of the UK being outside of the customs union and single market.

The SNP have barely attempted to tackle these issues, and so if people are still willing to back their push for independence, it suggests a level of partisan support and a suspension of critical thought.

No quite true that they have barely been addressed. The link below takes you to a series of papers produced last year on different aspects of independence. They don't nail everything by any means but they didn't set out to achieve that. How could they without significant discussion with UK? They do represent quite a bit of thought though. Certainly more than went into Brexit. So let me know by reference to these documents where you think the glaring holes are.

Independence: what you need to know

Information about Scotland's future.

www.gov.scot

 

[Brewster's millions]

Or just different thought to yours. As support for independence is at 50% and SNP support is at about 36% it suggests support for independence isn't a one party issue and not every SNP voter will be an independence supporter.
You can suggest anyone supporting independence shows a lack of critical thought but that says more about yourself than 50% of Scots.Think you have a very blinkered view of a quite complicated relationship between Scots, SNP , and the independence debate.

I can assure you that I’m more than aware of the economic difficulties surrounding independence and the continued failure - outright refusal in fact - of the SNP to address them.

I also very much doubt that 50% of voters genuinely support independence- it’s all very well saying yes in an opinion poll, but when it comes down to it the level of support will be appreciably lower.

 

[blueparrot]

I can assure you that I’m more than aware of the economic difficulties surrounding independence and the continued failure - outright refusal in fact - of the SNP to address them.

I also very much doubt that 50% of voters genuinely support independence- it’s all very well saying yes in an opinion poll, but when it comes down to it the level of support will be appreciably lower.

You think.

 

[Brewster's millions]

No quite true that they have barely been addressed. The link below takes you to a series of papers produced last year on different aspects of independence. They don't nail everything by any means but they didn't set out to achieve that. How could they without significant discussion with UK? They do represent quite a bit of thought though. Certainly more than went into Brexit. So let me know by reference to these documents where you think the glaring holes are.

Independence: what you need to know

Information about Scotland's future.

www.gov.scot

Well the currency is an obvious one - still using the pound for an indeterminate period, with no control over monetary policy and no true powers as lender of last resort or broader liquidity provision.

A glaring hole if ever there was one, and perhaps why the SNP used a PR bloke to write up their economic policy rather than an economist.

 

[Brewster's millions]

No difference to Brexit. No one on the Brexit side gave any real thought to the future trading relationship with Europe, the Irish border question which has led to the UK imposing a customs border within our own borders, the cost of trade barriers which has impacted small business especially and at this crucial time in European affairs we are on the outside looking in when it comes to deciding the direction of the EU.

A suspension of critical thought that is looking increasingly worse with the passing of time.

Completely agree with you - a retrograde step if ever there was one.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Well the currency is an obvious one - still using the pound for an indeterminate period, with no control over monetary policy and no true powers as lender of last resort or broader liquidity provision.

A glaring hole if ever there was one, and perhaps why the SNP used a PR bloke to write up their economic policy rather than an economist.

No one person wrote these papers mate. But you know that. There are far more august analysis of that strategy that detail the pros and cons than you and I will discuss on here. I certainly recognise some of the downsides as well as the advantages and an 'interim' period could well be a lengthy one which as you say would constrain the ability to borrow probably to short term debt albeit there would be nothing stopping the BoE lending if that was in the interests of the UK. Independence comes with significant risks, many of them financial but so does the status quo.

I'm on record as saying I don't believe that the SNP have the capability of delivering such a complex project but neither do I believe that those that support independence have suspended critical thought. I also believe that more thought has gone into this than was applied to Brexit which is one reason why so many Scots remain very cynical about the future prospects of UK.

 

[BobKowalski]

Completely agree with you - a retrograde step if ever there was one.

I booked this slot for a 5 minute argument. I’m kind of feeling let down here.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I booked this slot for a 5 minute argument. I’m kind of feeling let down here.

There is one fundamental difference between independence and Brexit. The Uk always had sovereignty. Scotland doesn’t.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I can assure you that I’m more than aware of the economic difficulties surrounding independence and the continued failure - outright refusal in fact - of the SNP to address them.

I also very much doubt that 50% of voters genuinely support independence- it’s all very well saying yes in an opinion poll, but when it comes down to it the level of support will be appreciably lower.

Returning to this thread after some months and quite a lot of soul searching about Scottish politics:

• the experience of Labour in government demonstrates they are not the answer for Scotland
• the real risk that Farage may be our next PM.
• The SNP's troubles and inability to think beyond a referendum

And still the various polls show that support for independence hovers around the 50% mark with a significant number of Scottish voters undecided. Whilst the case for democracy and a nation deciding on who governs it is clear, I think that calling for another referendum just now is not the answer. Another straightforward yes/no is likely to result in a similar outcome to the last vote - Scots faced with a leap in the dark and insufficient information to make a final decision. The SNP Government are culpable here, the Scottish people deserve better than a Yes/No question. The SNP have not shown sufficient competence or concrete progress to show that independence would work.

Independence can’t be sold as a leap of faith — it has to be be shown as a credible, carefully planned journey.
A detailed, independently verified transition plan can be produced without a referendum but has to be different from the various 'think tank' papers published so far - they don't go far enough and haven't been communicated well.

A Citizens’ Constitutional Convention — bringing together experts, civic groups and ordinary people — can draft an interim constitution and create public ownership of the process. Ultimately, the process needs to publish a fully detailed, independently verified transition plan, covering everything from currency and borders to debt, trade, and EU accession.

At the same time, the Scottish Government can quietly start building institutions of statehood: expanding Revenue Scotland, developing a national statistics agency, modelling borders and trade, and piloting digital infrastructure. This is how countries like Ireland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic prepared before gaining independence: not with slogans, but with quiet competence.

To earn wider trust, this must be taken out of party hands and lead by a Constitutional convention. This makes the process democratic, not partisan. Most of all, the public must see the plan working in real life — through devolved reforms, better public services, and real- world pilot projects. Only when people see not just why independence matters, but how it would work, will support become solid and lasting.

Only when support for independence is sustained at over say 60% should a referendum be called. You don’t win a referendum by demanding it. You win it by showing the country is already acting like a state — responsibly, competently, and inclusively. The referendum comes last, not first. All of this could be done under devolved government, none of it needs Westminster approval and I see it as the best way to achieve an independent Scotland that could prosper within Europe.

 

[Coatigan]

Returning to this thread after some months and quite a lot of soul searching about Scottish politics:

• the experience of Labour in government demonstrates they are not the answer for Scotland
• the real risk that Farage may be our next PM.
• The SNP's troubles and inability to think beyond a referendum

And still the various polls show that support for independence hovers around the 50% mark with a significant number of Scottish voters undecided. Whilst the case for democracy and a nation deciding on who governs it is clear, I think that calling for another referendum just now is not the answer. Another straightforward yes/no is likely to result in a similar outcome to the last vote - Scots faced with a leap in the dark and insufficient information to make a final decision. The SNP Government are culpable here, the Scottish people deserve better than a Yes/No question. The SNP have not shown sufficient competence or concrete progress to show that independence would work.

Independence can’t be sold as a leap of faith — it has to be be shown as a credible, carefully planned journey.
A detailed, independently verified transition plan can be produced without a referendum but has to be different from the various 'think tank' papers published so far - they don't go far enough and haven't been communicated well.

A Citizens’ Constitutional Convention — bringing together experts, civic groups and ordinary people — can draft an interim constitution and create public ownership of the process. Ultimately, the process needs to publish a fully detailed, independently verified transition plan, covering everything from currency and borders to debt, trade, and EU accession.

At the same time, the Scottish Government can quietly start building institutions of statehood: expanding Revenue Scotland, developing a national statistics agency, modelling borders and trade, and piloting digital infrastructure. This is how countries like Ireland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic prepared before gaining independence: not with slogans, but with quiet competence.

To earn wider trust, this must be taken out of party hands and lead by a Constitutional convention. This makes the process democratic, not partisan. Most of all, the public must see the plan working in real life — through devolved reforms, better public services, and real- world pilot projects. Only when people see not just why independence matters, but how it would work, will support become solid and lasting.

Only when support for independence is sustained at over say 60% should a referendum be called. You don’t win a referendum by demanding it. You win it by showing the country is already acting like a state — responsibly, competently, and inclusively. The referendum comes last, not first. All of this could be done under devolved government, none of it needs Westminster approval and I see it as the best way to achieve an independent Scotland that could prosper within Europe.

Interesting read that. I was nodding my head in agreement. And yet, I kind of disagree with almost all of it.

A leap of faith is ultimately all that we will be left with.

And not a half-positive, look on the brightside with wide-eyed optimism over the perils one, like 2014 maybe. But a jump out of a burning building come what may one.

 

[Coatigan]

Returning to this thread after some months and quite a lot of soul searching about Scottish politics:

• the experience of Labour in government demonstrates they are not the answer for Scotland
• the real risk that Farage may be our next PM.
• The SNP's troubles and inability to think beyond a referendum

And still the various polls show that support for independence hovers around the 50% mark with a significant number of Scottish voters undecided. Whilst the case for democracy and a nation deciding on who governs it is clear, I think that calling for another referendum just now is not the answer. Another straightforward yes/no is likely to result in a similar outcome to the last vote - Scots faced with a leap in the dark and insufficient information to make a final decision. The SNP Government are culpable here, the Scottish people deserve better than a Yes/No question. The SNP have not shown sufficient competence or concrete progress to show that independence would work.

Independence can’t be sold as a leap of faith — it has to be be shown as a credible, carefully planned journey.
A detailed, independently verified transition plan can be produced without a referendum but has to be different from the various 'think tank' papers published so far - they don't go far enough and haven't been communicated well.

A Citizens’ Constitutional Convention — bringing together experts, civic groups and ordinary people — can draft an interim constitution and create public ownership of the process. Ultimately, the process needs to publish a fully detailed, independently verified transition plan, covering everything from currency and borders to debt, trade, and EU accession.

At the same time, the Scottish Government can quietly start building institutions of statehood: expanding Revenue Scotland, developing a national statistics agency, modelling borders and trade, and piloting digital infrastructure. This is how countries like Ireland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic prepared before gaining independence: not with slogans, but with quiet competence.

To earn wider trust, this must be taken out of party hands and lead by a Constitutional convention. This makes the process democratic, not partisan. Most of all, the public must see the plan working in real life — through devolved reforms, better public services, and real- world pilot projects. Only when people see not just why independence matters, but how it would work, will support become solid and lasting.

Only when support for independence is sustained at over say 60% should a referendum be called. You don’t win a referendum by demanding it. You win it by showing the country is already acting like a state — responsibly, competently, and inclusively. The referendum comes last, not first. All of this could be done under devolved government, none of it needs Westminster approval and I see it as the best way to achieve an independent Scotland that could prosper within Europe.

Follow-up. The irony is, the way things are going, we might not even have to take the damn leap ourselves!

 

[Saddleworth2]

Interesting read that. I was nodding my head in agreement. And yet, I kind of disagree with almost all of it.

A leap of faith is ultimately all that we will be left with.

And not a half-positive, look on the brightside with wide-eyed optimism over the perils one, like 2014 maybe. But a jump out of a burning building come what may one.

Thanks mate. What specifically did you disagree about? Have just finished Sturgeons book. Made me reassess my views of her and the SNP.

 

[Coatigan]

Thanks mate. What specifically did you disagree about? Have just finished Sturgeons book. Made me reassess my views of her and the SNP.

Tbf it was a bit of a broadbrush comment, as there was a whole lot in there. I disagree with the broader stance, rather than the specifics. And I don't think the specifics matter, any more. That's not coming from my own views, but where things now are btw.

One poll that I would like to see, is what percentage of 2014 no voters now regret their vote. In my experience (and stating the obvious, that is limited to my own social circles) it is quite high.

 

[blueparrot]

Tbf it was a bit of a broadbrush comment, as there was a whole lot in there. I disagree with the broader stance, rather than the specifics. And I don't think the specifics matter, any more. That's not coming from my own views, but where things now are btw.

One poll that I would like to see, is what percentage of 2014 no voters now regret their vote. In my experience (and stating the obvious, that is limited to my own social circles) it is quite high.

I do, or at least I’d change it now. At the time I’d say I came down about 60/40 as No, mainly down to lack of clarity over EU memenership. That soon. Changed and was taken out of our hands anyway. If there was a votenow I’d be closer to 60/40 yes.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Follow-up. The irony is, the way things are going, we might not even have to take the damn leap ourselves!

why do you say that? I thought Farrage was a Unionist.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Returning to this thread after some months and quite a lot of soul searching about Scottish politics:

• the experience of Labour in government demonstrates they are not the answer for Scotland
• the real risk that Farage may be our next PM.
• The SNP's troubles and inability to think beyond a referendum

And still the various polls show that support for independence hovers around the 50% mark with a significant number of Scottish voters undecided. Whilst the case for democracy and a nation deciding on who governs it is clear, I think that calling for another referendum just now is not the answer. Another straightforward yes/no is likely to result in a similar outcome to the last vote - Scots faced with a leap in the dark and insufficient information to make a final decision. The SNP Government are culpable here, the Scottish people deserve better than a Yes/No question. The SNP have not shown sufficient competence or concrete progress to show that independence would work.

Independence can’t be sold as a leap of faith — it has to be be shown as a credible, carefully planned journey.
A detailed, independently verified transition plan can be produced without a referendum but has to be different from the various 'think tank' papers published so far - they don't go far enough and haven't been communicated well.

A Citizens’ Constitutional Convention — bringing together experts, civic groups and ordinary people — can draft an interim constitution and create public ownership of the process. Ultimately, the process needs to publish a fully detailed, independently verified transition plan, covering everything from currency and borders to debt, trade, and EU accession.

At the same time, the Scottish Government can quietly start building institutions of statehood: expanding Revenue Scotland, developing a national statistics agency, modelling borders and trade, and piloting digital infrastructure. This is how countries like Ireland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic prepared before gaining independence: not with slogans, but with quiet competence.

To earn wider trust, this must be taken out of party hands and lead by a Constitutional convention. This makes the process democratic, not partisan. Most of all, the public must see the plan working in real life — through devolved reforms, better public services, and real- world pilot projects. Only when people see not just why independence matters, but how it would work, will support become solid and lasting.

Only when support for independence is sustained at over say 60% should a referendum be called. You don’t win a referendum by demanding it. You win it by showing the country is already acting like a state — responsibly, competently, and inclusively. The referendum comes last, not first. All of this could be done under devolved government, none of it needs Westminster approval and I see it as the best way to achieve an independent Scotland that could prosper within Europe.

Interesting post and although I’m obviously a unionist, it’s hard to disagree with the broad thrust and principle of the points you make.

I have argued previously on here that the SNP have failed to exercise powers already in their gift that would strengthen the economic case for independence, other than simply improving the position of the public finances. In my view they’ve chosen not to do this because of the short/medium term difficulties they would create, which might reduce the immediate momentum for a further referendum, but would very likely bolster the case for independence at some future date.

A prime example is the continued failure to issue Scottish government bonds - a critical aspect of any independence push - and I would argue that the slow progress of the current due diligence process is just another symptom of this short-term political resistance.

The issues under scrutiny in the current phase of due diligence for example are fairly easy to address and can be replicated in large part by copying or slightly adapting the DMO’s framework, and yet the Scottish government’s timeline remains unknown.

Similar criticisms can made around the SNP’s plans for the continued use of Sterling post-independence. The six tests outline in the growth commission report are not well defined and extremely vague, and fail to credibly address a critical aspect of the independence debate. If a successful referendum outcome was the SNP’s true objective, rather than an early referendum debate, then it’s hard to believe that this ambiguity around the currency would be allowed to persist. Brexit provides new obstacles to address and so a complete rewrite of the growth commission report is required.

The one area where I would question your argument is obviously around the ability to have a truly independently verified transition plan, and for this to be accepted as such ahead of any referendum debate. The economic case for independence ultimately depends upon the prominence placed upon different risks and although a transition plan would focus more upon the structures required for independence, these would still provide points of contention.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Interesting post and although I’m obviously a unionist, it’s hard to disagree with the broad thrust and principle of the points you make.

I have argued previously on here that the SNP have failed to exercise powers already in their gift that would strengthen the economic case for independence, other than simply improving the position of the public finances. In my view they’ve chosen not to do this because of the short/medium term difficulties they would create, which might reduce the immediate momentum for a further referendum, but would very likely bolster the case for independence at some future date.

A prime example is the continued failure to issue Scottish government bonds - a critical aspect of any independence push - and I would argue that the slow progress of the current due diligence process is just another symptom of this short-term political resistance.

The issues under scrutiny in the current phase of due diligence for example are fairly easy to address and can be replicated in large part by copying or slightly adapting the DMO’s framework, and yet the Scottish government’s timeline remains unknown.

Similar criticisms can made around the SNP’s plans for the continued use of Sterling post-independence. The six tests outline in the growth commission report are not well defined and extremely vague, and fail to credibly address a critical aspect of the independence debate. If a successful referendum outcome was the SNP’s true objective, rather than an early referendum debate, then it’s hard to believe that this ambiguity around the currency would be allowed to persist. Brexit provides new obstacles to address and so a complete rewrite of the growth commission report is required.

The one area where I would question your argument is obviously around the ability to have a truly independently verified transition plan, and for this to be accepted as such ahead of any referendum debate. The economic case for independence ultimately depends upon the prominence placed upon different risks and although a transition plan would focus more upon the structures required for independence, these would still provide points of contention.

Thanks for the considered response.
Not easy but not impossible. A credible transition plan would need to be independently validated across a number of fronts. As I suggested it should be produced by an expert-led, politically neutral commission made up of economists, legal scholars, diplomats, public finance specialists, industry and members of the public. This independent group would evaluate the practicalities of the transition, including currency options, debt arrangements, pensions, and international relationships. Their work could be supported by reviews from international institutions such as the OECD, IMF, or the Venice Commission (where they can be engaged). Drawing comparisons with past independence transitions around the world and peer review by those countries would also help test the realism of the proposals. Economic projections should be audited by independent fiscal bodies, with legal analysis commissioned to examine constitutional and international law implications.

Naturally, the plan would have to be debated in Scottish Parliament and ideally by a cross-party committee, and the public should be given full access to the underlying data, assumptions, and risk scenarios. Engaging the Scottish people throughout by consultations or assemblies would help build trust. Proactive diplomatic engagement would also help position Scotland as a prepared and credible future state in the eyes of the international community.

Pie in the sky stuff, but for me its the only way forward that would achieve success. You will see some believe that given the population of Scotland over the next few decades a majority favouring independence is inevitable. I don't believe that, even if we hold a referendum every ten years, without a concrete road map the Scottish people will not take a leap into the unknown. We will choose to suffer whatever the future holds for the UK under an extreme right wing regime.

 

[Coatigan]

Thanks for the considered response.
Not easy but not impossible. A credible transition plan would need to be independently validated across a number of fronts. As I suggested it should be produced by an expert-led, politically neutral commission made up of economists, legal scholars, diplomats, public finance specialists, industry and members of the public. This independent group would evaluate the practicalities of the transition, including currency options, debt arrangements, pensions, and international relationships. Their work could be supported by reviews from international institutions such as the OECD, IMF, or the Venice Commission (where they can be engaged). Drawing comparisons with past independence transitions around the world and peer review by those countries would also help test the realism of the proposals. Economic projections should be audited by independent fiscal bodies, with legal analysis commissioned to examine constitutional and international law implications.

Naturally, the plan would have to be debated in Scottish Parliament and ideally by a cross-party committee, and the public should be given full access to the underlying data, assumptions, and risk scenarios. Engaging the Scottish people throughout by consultations or assemblies would help build trust. Proactive diplomatic engagement would also help position Scotland as a prepared and credible future state in the eyes of the international community.

Pie in the sky stuff, but for me its the only way forward that would achieve success. You will see some believe that given the population of Scotland over the next few decades a majority favouring independence is inevitable. I don't believe that, even if we hold a referendum every ten years, without a concrete road map the Scottish people will not take a leap into the unknown. We will choose to suffer whatever the future holds for the UK under an extreme right wing regime.

That's exactly why it didn't happen in 2014. This everything must be mapped out and pre-calculated place people cornered themselves into. I said it a few times here, No's biggest success, was convincing everyone they were an expert on everything.

It is always a leap into the unknown. Always.