Scottish Independence

[Coatigan]

Can't you see that there's an inevitability to all this (and yes it is the Scottish indy thread) but Blair offered devolution to cut off the nationalists in Scotland and Wales,Dave called the brexit ref to head off euro scepticism,both strategies have failed.
We have left the eu and as a Scottish friend told me you have to win every referendum we only need one,I think you are ignoring the strength of feeling in Scotland that they are being ignored.

This is a really really good point/question.
Once you start it, is there any stopping it.

I've not seen anything that would point to it not being inevitable, myself. And i guess Brexit has probably reinforced that.

Whether it is a matter of a decade here or there, in the grand scheme of things, is almost insignificant. To me it only seems to be goung in one direction.

When the referendum was first called nearly 10 years ago, the desire for independence was polling at 15%. I knew maybe a handful of people that openly wanted/supported independence. And often they were considered a bit of a joke amongst friends, with digs here and there. By 2014, that became over 70% of my friends. I know that doesnt reflect the overall and national figures, but that is because we are of a particular age group, geographically however, it covers a lot of the country. Since then, more and more have swung to it, i genuinely don't know a single person that has changed their mind the other way.

Now i still maintain i don't believe there has been enough of a swing, nor that there is a desire overall. But i keep saying it, i only see ot moving in one direction.

 

[Coatigan]

just to clarify above, when i say 'Brexit has probably reinforced that', what i mean is the feeling of inevitably, and i guess maybe somewhat of a precedent.

In the sense that, Brexit happened, that is. As farage and co will point out, they have been campaigning for this for over 30 years.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

My response i guess is to a number of points you raise across multiple posts rather than just the one above (which i've clearly found interesting and valid enough to bother responding to), ive not multi-quoted purely for ease. And note, my pointing out a different side to the argument, and the contrasting view does not mean that is always what i believe or want, purely highlighting there IS a counter-interpretation, and in some cases quite a prevalent one as well.

You are right, Scotland did have the opportunity, voted no. Things have changed though, and continue to do so. The 'you've had your say, now stick with it.' stance is unsustainable, unconstructive, and increasingly to many, undemocratic. I'm not suggesting that is what you've said btw, just that it is out there. The once in a generation line that people have latched onto is meaningless, it can't be treated as any formal agreement or binding 'promise', it wasn't, it was a sales pitch highlighting the significance of the opportunity/risk, depending on which side promoted it, and both did.

I agree, the economic case for independence was stronger in 2014, without a doubt. But, so was the case for remaining. The 'best of both worlds' while being in the EU (and remaining in the UK being the only way to guarantee that' has been eroded away. How much more brexit weakens that remains to be seen, and what that balance is at the time of asking/making such a case may well be what swings it.

I disagree with your view that Scotland is overcompensated and over
-represented. Scotland contributes more, both in tax and in income, and the Barnett formula recognises that. To you, it recognizes it too much, to many scots, not enough. To me, for the record, neither. I don't know enough to not trust either side (or both) that agreed it. Scrapping it however, and the calls to do so, will imho be the final nail in the Union. I do agree though, i did not like Cameron's incentive promises to remain. they created animosity for a start, on both sides. On one, why are 'they' being given more. On the other, why did they need to ask and why were they not given sooner, if 'deserved', and if not, why are they needed as a buy-off. And then there is the bitter taste of them not actually having been delivered, while the other side rerains the bitter taste they were offered in the first place. It was one of the worst thing he did at the time imho and will leave a long term issue for what was for him a short term fix, potentially completely unnecessary.

Regarding how you intterpret the voting figures, it is as selective as the remainer arguements Brexit has no mandate, and pointless. An independence promoting party has the largest share of the votes. And two independence supporting parties have a working majority in parliament. And i'll just point out, not just you but others too that seem to think the snp are an overnight flash in the pan, they have won the last 6 elections in a row, continue to gain support, and have been on the increase more or less since the 70s. It would be naive to think they are foing to just vanish. We all accept the political set up in N.I as estsblished, imho, Scotland has become the same now. Whether we/you like it or not. imho.

A good post which I enjoyed reading, thanks. I don't dissagree with much of what you say. Accept where you state that Scotland contributes more in tax and in income and the Barnett formula recognises that. Firstly I am not sure you do bring in more tax and income with the oil price as it is. I would be interested to see some recent balanced figures on this ? I do know the North Sea oil industry is heavily subsidised and has tax incentives by the UK government but do not know the exact numbers involved.

The Barnet formula wasn't brought in to recognise that Scotland contributes more per person, it was brought in precisely because the Scottish economy was struggling at the time. If it isn't now struggling as you state, why should you continue to get more than your fair share of the UK wealth whilst you remain part of the UK.

The SNP have the ability to raise taxes and have done so slightly . That surely is the only method the Scots should have to increase spending north of the border?

Fwiw I believe the same should also apply to other areas of the UK that get disproportionately more per person.

 

[blueinsa]

A good post which I enjoyed reading, thanks. I don't dissagree with much of what you say. Accept where you state that Scotland contributes more in tax and in income and the Barnett formula recognises that. Firstly I am not sure you do bring in more tax and income with the oil price as it is. I would be interested to see some recent balanced figures on this ? I do know the North Sea oil industry is heavily subsidised and has tax incentives by the UK government but do not know the exact numbers involved.

The Barnet formula wasn't brought in to recognise that Scotland contributes more per person, it was brought in precisely because the Scottish economy was struggling at the time. If it isn't now struggling as you state, why should you continue to get more than your fair share of the UK wealth whilst you remain part of the UK.

The SNP have the ability to raise taxes and have done so slightly . That surely is the only method the Scots should have to increase spending north of the border?

Fwiw I believe the same should also apply to other areas of the UK that get disproportionately more per person.

Scotland had to ask for over money not long back as the tax take was significantly lower than they had forecast.

 

[Ban-jani]

This is a really really good point/question.
Once you start it, is there any stopping it.

I've not seen anything that would point to it not being inevitable, myself. And i guess Brexit has probably reinforced that.

Whether it is a matter of a decade here or there, in the grand scheme of things, is almost insignificant. To me it only seems to be goung in one direction.

When the referendum was first called nearly 10 years ago, the desire for independence was polling at 15%. I knew maybe a handful of people that openly wanted/supported independence. And often they were considered a bit of a joke amongst friends, with digs here and there. By 2014, that became over 70% of my friends. I know that doesnt reflect the overall and national figures, but that is because we are of a particular age group, geographically however, it covers a lot of the country. Since then, more and more have swung to it, i genuinely don't know a single person that has changed their mind the other way.

Now i still maintain i don't believe there has been enough of a swing, nor that there is a desire overall. But i keep saying it, i only see ot moving in one direction.

There won’t be a vote before 2024, it’s unlikely there will be one in the 2020’s.
I think there will be one in the early 2030’s and once things have settled with Brexit and once the reality of being outside the EU and UK will be more evident and the other issues I’ve mentioned over the last few pages, comes to light, I see Scotland narrowly voting no again.

I think if the SNP lose the next vote, it’ll be dead for another 50 or so years, unless something else significant happens.

I don’t see it as being inevitable at all, I see Irish reunification coming first and that’s a far more sensible policy for a party to hold, in NI.

 

[Coatigan]

There won’t be a vote before 2024, it’s unlikely there will be one in the 2020’s.
I think there will be one in the early 2030’s and once things have settled with Brexit and once the reality of being outside the EU and UK will be more evident and the other issues I’ve mentioned over the last few pages, comes to light, I see Scotland narrowly voting no again.

I think if the SNP lose the next vote, it’ll be dead for another 50 or so years, unless something else significant happens.

I don’t see it as being inevitable at all, I see Irish reunification coming first and that’s a far more sensible policy for a party to hold, in NI.

So you keep saying.

I agree with your second paragraph. Interesting point about irish reunification happening first in your third, wouldn't bet against that, wouldn't surprise me if that did happen.

But re your 'there wont be a referendum in the next decade', wouldn't bet on that. I honestly highly doubt that will be the case, i think we will see one before 2024, if not the 2020s. As it is going at least, and depending on how 2021 goes. Time will tell, i (and you) guess.

Edit: And btw, post 2014, or even during the run-up, ive heard so many claim (as confidently as you) there was no chance there would be a referendum on leaving the EU in our lifetime, let alone the possinility the UK would choose to do so. Right up until the 2015 election.

 

[west didsblue]

There won’t be a vote before 2024, it’s unlikely there will be one in the 2020’s.
I think there will be one in the early 2030’s and once things have settled with Brexit and once the reality of being outside the EU and UK will be more evident and the other issues I’ve mentioned over the last few pages, comes to light, I see Scotland narrowly voting no again.

I think if the SNP lose the next vote, it’ll be dead for another 50 or so years, unless something else significant happens.

I don’t see it as being inevitable at all, I see Irish reunification coming first and that’s a far more sensible policy for a party to hold, in NI.

Making a prediction as to what might happen in the 2030s is a bit bold.
However no-one will remember by then so it's a pointless exercise.

 

[Ban-jani]

Making a prediction as to what might happen in the 2030s is a bit bold.
However no-one will remember by then so it's a pointless exercise.

I agree and it’s why I’m being a bit loose with it and still think it’d be close but as you say, it’s while away.

I am basing it mostly on the reality of them being both outside the UK and EU for a period of time and I think the thought of that will swing it in no’s favour.

I still don’t think they’re having another referendum in the next decade, the Tories will be in power until 2029 imo.

 

[Ban-jani]

So you keep saying.

I agree with your second paragraph. Interesting point about irish reunification happening first in your third, wouldn't bet against that, wouldn't surprise me if that did happen.

But re your 'there wont be a referendum in the next decade', wouldn't bet on that. I honestly highly doubt that will be the case, i think we will see one before 2024, if not the 2020s. As it is going at least, and depending on how 2021 goes. Time will tell, i (and you) guess.

Edit: And btw, post 2014, or even during the run-up, ive heard so many claim (as confidently as you) there was no chance there would be a referendum on leaving the EU in our lifetime, let alone the possinility the UK would choose to do so. Right up until the 2015 election.

The Tories will not allow an IndyRef in this term of government, I’d be willing to make a significant bet on that I’m that sure.

What happens in 2024 election wise is a biggie but I seriously think the Tories will win and won’t be keen to allow another IndyRef, unless they were confident of winning (obviously we’ve heard that before by a certain Mr Cameron on EU membership).

The difference is that Cameron was haemorrhaging voters and MPs to UKIP, his party backbench were putting a significant amount of pressure on him regarding Europe and he took the gamble to save his party and government.

He did something he didn’t want to do through little choice, if he wanted to save the Tory Party

In this instance no one in the Tory party wants an independent Scotland, he has power and isn’t losing voters or MPs and not giving this referendum just pisses of the yes campaign in Scotland. He’s got much less to lose, if anything, by denying IndyRef2.

I think if he were to allow it, he’ll wait for Brexit to settle down and for the economy to be stable.

Taking away any bias on Brexit or IndyRef2, it would be incredibly stupid and irresponsible to hold one or agree to hold one before 2024. We’re in a period of trade negotiations and the risk of losing a significant chunk of the state is an appalling handicap to give oneself.

 

[Coatigan]

The Tories will not allow an IndyRef in this term of government, I’d be willing to make a significant bet on that I’m that sure.

What happens in 2024 election wise is a biggie but I seriously think the Tories will win and won’t be keen to allow another IndyRef, unless they were confident of winning (obviously we’ve heard that before by a certain Mr Cameron on EU membership).

The difference is that Cameron was haemorrhaging voters and MPs to UKIP, his party backbench were putting a significant amount of pressure on him regarding Europe and he took the gamble to save his party and government.

He did something he didn’t want to do through little choice, if he wanted to save the Tory Party

In this instance no one in the Tory party wants an independent Scotland, he has power and isn’t losing voters or MPs and not giving this referendum just pisses of the yes campaign in Scotland. He’s got much less to lose, if anything, by denying IndyRef2.

I think if he were to allow it, he’ll wait for Brexit to settle down and for the economy to be stable.

Taking away any bias on Brexit or IndyRef2, it would be incredibly stupid and irresponsible to hold one or agree to hold one before 2024. We’re in a period of trade negotiations and the risk of losing a significant chunk of the state is an appalling handicap to give oneself.

Agree with all that. Honestly, i do.

Still think we are likely to see one by 2024 myself. Definately wouldn't say with any sense of certainty that there won't be one.