It is interesting you think that. As much as a recession gives them those scorepoints, it could well make many put any glimpse of financial security first. In some ways, covid has already done that and convictions will be only be as strong as the economic worries.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It is interesting you think that. As much as a recession gives them those scorepoints, it could well make many put any glimpse of financial security first. In some ways, covid has already done that and convictions will be only be as strong as the economic worries.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
The financial pain of Brexit is going to be around for many more years, especially now that the world the Brexiteers envisioned of international free-trade and open markets is fast becoming a distant memory. Instead, the big boys (USA, EU, China, Russia, and India) will now rule the world for the foreseeable, and an independent Scotland would profit more (economically and militarily) in the long term from being in the EU. The two main English parties, which is what they are after Starmer‘s speech, will not turn round the Brexit ship, so No voters in 2023, say, would be tying themselves and Scotland to that mast for further punishment. If the SNP cannot sell that to 51% of the electorate, then they don’t deserve to see their ambition fulfilled and the people at heart are ‘feart’.It is interesting you think that. As much as a recession gives them those scorepoints, it could well make many put any glimpse of financial security first. In some ways, covid has already done that and convictions will be only be as strong as the economic worries.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
Yes, but while the rhetoric alone method swayed sufficient people to vote for Brexit, it hasn’t taken too long for the public to realise that voting for something for which there is no plan, just a vision, is foolish.And yet many people will look at their short term situation and that will play a big big part. It is common. It is understandable.
You see it here with very switched on posters like Saddleworth2 and Blueparrot, often saying all will depend on the detail at the time and the trust in the personnel. I always struggle with that myself, for me it is about bigger principles, which should in theory transcend Boris and Nicola and the minutiae.
I've said before, what the No camapign absolutely nailed the last time, is convincing everyone they were experts at everything. And focusing debates on the future price of oil, the likely currency exchange rate, speed limits, and so on. And Europe, of course. The Brexit lot knew their game well, fuck all plan, fuck all care. Rhetoric and more rhetoric and broad cliches that people can associate their own pre-set convictions with. Sure, some had a bit of a higher level of expectation and promise dangled at them, but for the most part it was simplistic broad brush the masses.
The SNP can instead argue for a full return to the EU and a return to a world that society can still remember. It won’t be without difficulties, of course, and if you’re creating a spreadsheet to measure your personal costs and benefits, then you‘re probably never going to vote to leave, but it is something that can be envisaged.
People in the West are generally going to see a decline in their living standards in the next decades anyway, but Scotland has a much better chance of at least slowing that decline if trading freely inside the EU, and if Scots want a glimpse of how quick that decline might be, they need only compare with their lot in 2014.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
It was me who mentioned a civil war and unionism rejecting a Democratic vote with a threat of violence, but I was talking about Irish history of the last hundred years.You think that it will be a tiny minority? I am amazed at some of the opinions on this thread from civil war from unionists who have access to loads of guns to what appears to be total and complete disregard for a vote that affects everyone in Scotland not just the nationalistic Scottish.
That "Tiny minority" is going to end up biting some of the nationals on their arse ;)
I put the question at the end, could this happen in this day and age. Surely not. I hope not, for Scotland.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 21,711
A further official paper on independence. Not a how or when, more a comprehensive case for why.
'Renewing democracy through independence'.
I will enjoy reading it over the next couple of days.
'Renewing democracy through independence'.
I will enjoy reading it over the next couple of days.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 21,711
I have tried to precis what is a a 50 page paper into a few words. The paper simply makes the case as to why the status quo is unacceptable because the Westminster parliament has unlimited power to 1) scrap/amend devolution powers held by the Scottish Parliament and 2) impose on Scotland laws which are against its citizens wishes, the best example being Brexit. There is very little new in the paper. It does not seek to describe independence, merely to make a case as to why a referendum should be held and in that limited objective I think it succeeds. Of course to accept this, you really have to be in a place which accepts that Scotland is a Nation within the UK and not simply a Region. The Union was formed on that basis with Scotland retaining many of its defining national structures (legal system, education, religion..).
I have taken snippets to give a flavour for those interested but not interested enough to read the whole paper:
In this, the second paper in the Building a New Scotland series, we set out key democratic considerations to help people in Scotland make an informed choice about their future. The current constitutional arrangements allow the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to exercise powers on ‘devolved’ matters, such as health and education, while the Westminster Parliament and UK Government have control of ‘reserved’ issues such as foreign affairs and most aspects of tax, energy, macroeconomic, and social security policy. However, Westminster retains ultimate power – even on devolved matters – and over recent years, as this paper shows, the UK Government has acted to override decisions of the Scottish Parliament and claw back powers in devolved areas. It has done so despite having the support of a relatively small proportion of the electorate in Scotland. The current governing party at Westminster, for example, has just six MPs representing Scotland and has not won an election in Scotland for almost 70 years. This ‘democratic deficit’ has real-life consequences. In this paper we set out the impact of the damaging decisions taken by the UK Government and Westminster Parliament against the wishes and interests of the people of Scotland. The most obvious example in recent times – and with far reaching consequences – is Brexit, which removed Scotland from the EU despite the people who live here voting to remain. There is now a substantial majority in the Scottish Parliament in favour of – indeed elected on a clear commitment to deliver – a referendum, to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence. In an independent Scotland we can forge a better relationship – an equal partnership – with the rest of the UK, instead of the UK Government being able to assert ‘Westminster sovereignty’ regardless of the views of the Scottish Parliament or the people of Scotland. Other people will have different views of course and we welcome the debate on how the democratic interests and voice of Scotland can best be served.
Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP
“Scotland is not a region, but a member nation of the United Kingdom.” Submission to the Kilbrandon Commission by the Labour Party 1970
“as a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.” Margaret Thatcher 1993
“the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on March 25, 1707, is hereby reconvened.” Winnie Ewing, 12 May 1999
“Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how we are governed.” Joint statement by the leaders of the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour Party and Scottish Liberal Democrats. June 2014
“Our Union rests on and is defined by the support of its people … it will endure as long as people want it to – for as long as it enjoys the popular support of the people of Scotland and Wales, England and Northern Ireland”. Theresa May 2019
The paper sets out the Scottish Government’s view, and the evidence supporting it, that independence is the only realistic way to renew Scotland’s democratic institutions, respect the voice of the people of Scotland, and secure Scotland’s democratic future. The paper rests on the fundamental belief that decisions about Scotland are best made by the people who live in Scotland through our own, independent parliament. It presents evidence to show that the tradition and practice of parliamentary sovereignty as exercised by the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament is eroding and constraining Scotland’s democracy, and undermining a devolution settlement that is already too limited to enable Scotland to fully address the challenges of the future.
The United Kingdom – at least until now – has been considered a voluntary union of countries. Scotland is a nation, not a region of a unitary state. In line with the principle of self-determination, therefore, the people of Scotland have the right to determine our own future – in the words of the Claim of Right for Scotland, to choose the form of government best suited to our needs, including whether or not to become an independent country.
However, the UK constitutional system is based on the unlimited sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. As a result, there is a clear misalignment between the reality of Scotland as a nation and a Westminster system which claims the right to make decisions for Scotland whatever the views of the people who live here.
The uncodified constitution of the UK contains many features that are significantly flawed. These include:
• the limited ability of voters in the smaller nations of the UK to influence the results of UK Parliament elections, frequently resulting in them being governed by Westminster Governments they did not vote for
• the electoral system used for the UK Parliament, that produces disproportionate results
• the reforms to electoral law introduced by the current UK Government, which will make elections even less fair and • the inability under the UK constitution to entrench or protect the fundamental features of democracy – including devolution – from being altered on the whim of the Westminster Government of the day
Devolution, which the people of Scotland supported in the 1997 referendum with an overwhelming 74% of votes, has delivered material benefits for the people of Scotland and is trusted by them to work in Scotland’s best interests. However, devolution has not protected Scotland from being taken out of the EU against the clear views of the majority (62%) of Scottish voters in the 2016 referendum, nor from the “hard” form of Brexit imposed by the UK Government. Devolution has also been undermined by a series of actions by the UK Government and Parliament since 2016 that have the effect of limiting the ability of the Scottish Parliament to make decisions and laws for Scotland, and which encroach on devolved spending powers, without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. This trend appears set to continue and increase, as will the UK Government imposing its views in devolved areas and against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. Under the UK’s constitution there is no way to entrench or protect devolution. It will always be vulnerable to being overridden by the exercise of UK Parliamentary sovereignty and decisions of the UK Government.
It is widely accepted that Scotland’s continuing place in the Union depends on the consent of the people of Scotland, who have the right to choose independence if they wish. The people of Scotland have given the Scottish Parliament a mandate to offer the choice of independence and the Scottish Government intends to deliver on that mandate.
I have taken snippets to give a flavour for those interested but not interested enough to read the whole paper:
In this, the second paper in the Building a New Scotland series, we set out key democratic considerations to help people in Scotland make an informed choice about their future. The current constitutional arrangements allow the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to exercise powers on ‘devolved’ matters, such as health and education, while the Westminster Parliament and UK Government have control of ‘reserved’ issues such as foreign affairs and most aspects of tax, energy, macroeconomic, and social security policy. However, Westminster retains ultimate power – even on devolved matters – and over recent years, as this paper shows, the UK Government has acted to override decisions of the Scottish Parliament and claw back powers in devolved areas. It has done so despite having the support of a relatively small proportion of the electorate in Scotland. The current governing party at Westminster, for example, has just six MPs representing Scotland and has not won an election in Scotland for almost 70 years. This ‘democratic deficit’ has real-life consequences. In this paper we set out the impact of the damaging decisions taken by the UK Government and Westminster Parliament against the wishes and interests of the people of Scotland. The most obvious example in recent times – and with far reaching consequences – is Brexit, which removed Scotland from the EU despite the people who live here voting to remain. There is now a substantial majority in the Scottish Parliament in favour of – indeed elected on a clear commitment to deliver – a referendum, to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence. In an independent Scotland we can forge a better relationship – an equal partnership – with the rest of the UK, instead of the UK Government being able to assert ‘Westminster sovereignty’ regardless of the views of the Scottish Parliament or the people of Scotland. Other people will have different views of course and we welcome the debate on how the democratic interests and voice of Scotland can best be served.
Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP
“Scotland is not a region, but a member nation of the United Kingdom.” Submission to the Kilbrandon Commission by the Labour Party 1970
“as a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.” Margaret Thatcher 1993
“the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on March 25, 1707, is hereby reconvened.” Winnie Ewing, 12 May 1999
“Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how we are governed.” Joint statement by the leaders of the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour Party and Scottish Liberal Democrats. June 2014
“Our Union rests on and is defined by the support of its people … it will endure as long as people want it to – for as long as it enjoys the popular support of the people of Scotland and Wales, England and Northern Ireland”. Theresa May 2019
The paper sets out the Scottish Government’s view, and the evidence supporting it, that independence is the only realistic way to renew Scotland’s democratic institutions, respect the voice of the people of Scotland, and secure Scotland’s democratic future. The paper rests on the fundamental belief that decisions about Scotland are best made by the people who live in Scotland through our own, independent parliament. It presents evidence to show that the tradition and practice of parliamentary sovereignty as exercised by the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament is eroding and constraining Scotland’s democracy, and undermining a devolution settlement that is already too limited to enable Scotland to fully address the challenges of the future.
The United Kingdom – at least until now – has been considered a voluntary union of countries. Scotland is a nation, not a region of a unitary state. In line with the principle of self-determination, therefore, the people of Scotland have the right to determine our own future – in the words of the Claim of Right for Scotland, to choose the form of government best suited to our needs, including whether or not to become an independent country.
However, the UK constitutional system is based on the unlimited sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. As a result, there is a clear misalignment between the reality of Scotland as a nation and a Westminster system which claims the right to make decisions for Scotland whatever the views of the people who live here.
The uncodified constitution of the UK contains many features that are significantly flawed. These include:
• the limited ability of voters in the smaller nations of the UK to influence the results of UK Parliament elections, frequently resulting in them being governed by Westminster Governments they did not vote for
• the electoral system used for the UK Parliament, that produces disproportionate results
• the reforms to electoral law introduced by the current UK Government, which will make elections even less fair and • the inability under the UK constitution to entrench or protect the fundamental features of democracy – including devolution – from being altered on the whim of the Westminster Government of the day
Devolution, which the people of Scotland supported in the 1997 referendum with an overwhelming 74% of votes, has delivered material benefits for the people of Scotland and is trusted by them to work in Scotland’s best interests. However, devolution has not protected Scotland from being taken out of the EU against the clear views of the majority (62%) of Scottish voters in the 2016 referendum, nor from the “hard” form of Brexit imposed by the UK Government. Devolution has also been undermined by a series of actions by the UK Government and Parliament since 2016 that have the effect of limiting the ability of the Scottish Parliament to make decisions and laws for Scotland, and which encroach on devolved spending powers, without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. This trend appears set to continue and increase, as will the UK Government imposing its views in devolved areas and against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. Under the UK’s constitution there is no way to entrench or protect devolution. It will always be vulnerable to being overridden by the exercise of UK Parliamentary sovereignty and decisions of the UK Government.
It is widely accepted that Scotland’s continuing place in the Union depends on the consent of the people of Scotland, who have the right to choose independence if they wish. The people of Scotland have given the Scottish Parliament a mandate to offer the choice of independence and the Scottish Government intends to deliver on that mandate.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 21,711
This thread has been silent for months. Are we Scot’s still winging parasites or is the consensus now that we have a bona fides case for independence?
Sturgeon has been using some pretty strong language this week. Will that help or harm her case?
when oh when will Liz phone that attention seeker?
So many questions.
Sturgeon has been using some pretty strong language this week. Will that help or harm her case?
when oh when will Liz phone that attention seeker?
So many questions.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Nah if the Scots get independence they can come straight back in, there's special circumstances.That’s sentiment though, not reality. Finland was the fastest country to join and that was in just under 3 years and it was already an independent state. Scotland’s application can only begin once it has decoupled from the rUK, so it will likely take 5 years. It might be slightly accelerated for geopolitical purposes, but the evidence from previous cases is around 5 years.
Having lived in England for 44 years and Scotland for 30 years I very much favour independence in principle. I would however like to have referendum where 60+% were in favour and would be worried if less than 55% were infavour. The short to medium term economics don’t look very good with or without independence so that isn’t much of an issue for me. Long term Scotland can do well economically, I think.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
Namely?Nah if the Scots get independence they can come straight back in, there's special circumstances.
The accession process is well documented and as much as we might welcome Scotland ‘back in’, it knows that it will have to pass certain criteria at certain times, which I have no doubt it will.