The Scottish Politics Thread

[Wylie Coyote]

I've just had a look back and every so often this guy turns up with accusations of "Trumpism" aimed at anyone in favour of Scots being in charge of their own future.

I'll remember to not engage in future.

I've referenced Trump in a single post coming up on 3 years ago(maybe look in the mirror), but if that is all it takes to lose your sparkling engagement then I'm sure I will survive somehow.

[Tichtheid]

I've just had a look back and every so often this guy turns up with accusations of "Trumpism" aimed at anyone in favour of Scots being in charge of their own future.

I'll remember to not engage in future.

I've referenced Trump in a single post coming up on 3 years ago(maybe look in the mirror), but if that is all it takes to lose your sparkling engagement then I'm sure I will survive somehow.

You could spend time on the policies if you like - for example, using Blackmac's post you could perhaps go into just how the Scot Gov fell short on children's issues and child poverty in particular, if you want to push that agenda then I'll back it for sure.

There are problems with further education, if you're pushing for much greater investment and better organisation there then I'll back that, if we know where it is coming from.

The Lothians are going through massive changes with all the house building, there is a shortage of housing and the prices in Edinburgh in particular are ludicrous, but the Lothians are changing and are no longer the rural places they were.
If you want to engage on that, then fire away.

There are loads of issues to engage with in a positive way

[Blackmac]

I've just had a look back and every so often this guy turns up with accusations of "Trumpism" aimed at anyone in favour of Scots being in charge of their own future.

I'll remember to not engage in future.

I've referenced Trump in a single post coming up on 3 years ago(maybe look in the mirror), but if that is all it takes to lose your sparkling engagement then I'm sure I will survive somehow.

You could spend time on the policies if you like - for example, using Blackmac's post you could perhaps go into just how the Scot Gov fell short on children's issues and child poverty in particular, if you want to push that agenda then I'll back it for sure.

There are problems with further education, if you're pushing for much greater investment and better organisation there then I'll back that, if we know where it is coming from.

The Lothians are going through massive changes with all the house building, there is a shortage of housing and the prices in Edinburgh in particular are ludicrous, but the Lothians are changing and are no longer the rural places they were.
If you want to engage on that, then fire away.

There are loads of issues to engage with in a positive way

Oh the Lothians are certainly worth a chat. Absolute disgrace what has been allowed to develop along the A701 corridor over the last 15 years. By all accounts Midlothian Council have be rejecting nearly all these planning applications, only to have them approved on appeal. Tens of thousands of houses with not a penny spent on roads infrastructure or things like schools. Madness.

[tc27]

I think in the depths of this thread I may have defended Neil Oliver.

I regret doing so....the guy is a complete fuckin' lunatic .

[Slick]

There’s another of the thoughtless go-to internet jibes, “Trumpian” it’s just so lazy and unoriginal

Mone has so little political clout that she had direct access to senior UK government ministers and through them to contracts worth up to two hundred million pounds of public funds.

No one here is disputing how bad the purchase of a caravan with SNP funds looks, it could be innocent, it could indeed have been the battle bus being claimed, but you don’t get it delivered to your mum.
However it’s a caravan when all is said and done, the police presence made it look like they were about to be digging up bodies in the front garden.

They are now saying there are thousands of purchases they are looking at which is why they were going through everything

[Slick]

Nicola Sturgeon 'absolutely failed' Scottish children - commissioner https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-65588466

Looks like another heavy dent in a rapidly diminishing legacy.

That’s not an entirely accurate representation of what he said, the “absolutely “ was an affirmative response to a question.

I’m left feeling like I did when the Blair years were being misrepresented, I felt very uneasy about “defending “ him, as I do with Sturgeon

Indy is about far more than the SNP

To be fair, the SNP have made Indy all about the SNP, so there can’t be many complaints

[Blackmac]

There’s another of the thoughtless go-to internet jibes, “Trumpian” it’s just so lazy and unoriginal

Mone has so little political clout that she had direct access to senior UK government ministers and through them to contracts worth up to two hundred million pounds of public funds.

No one here is disputing how bad the purchase of a caravan with SNP funds looks, it could be innocent, it could indeed have been the battle bus being claimed, but you don’t get it delivered to your mum.
However it’s a caravan when all is said and done, the police presence made it look like they were about to be digging up bodies in the front garden.

They are now saying there are thousands of purchases they are looking at which is why they were going through everything

Normally in a fraud enquiry the police would just sweep up all computers, phones, documents etc and examine them at their leisure, however the Crown office insisted that the likelihood of collateral intrusion was so high at the Murrells, all items needed to be evaluated before being removed. Hence the reason for the tent and the length of time it took to conduct the search.

[Line6 HXFX]

Seems both Scotland and Wales are f'king trapped in a deplorable Union, and kept there by moronic Hypocritical Unionists.

Do you know what Peter Hain (Welsh Secretary for 11 years, and like all through the Labour Years) used to say, when faced with questions about all the stinking awful child poverty in Wales (particularly my area, Blaenau Gwent).

He used to regularly say " well the rest of the U.K. is doing fine".
That was his answer. The answer of the Labour government, in office for the entire time.
"The rest of the U.K. is doing fine".

Gorden Brown when asked to his face in parliament the same question said " well London is doing fine".

That was where the Labour AND Unionist party set the bar on child poverty..for the entire time they were in government...so did Sturgeon try to do more than that?

[Jim Lahey]

Seems both Scotland and Wales are f'king trapped in a deplorable Union, and kept there by moronic Hypocritical Unionists.

Do you know what Peter Hain (Welsh Secretary for 11 years, and like all through the Labour Years) used to say, when faced with questions about all the stinking awful child poverty in Wales (particularly my area, Blaenau Gwent).

He used to regularly say " well the rest of the U.K. is doing fine".
That was his answer. The answer of the Labour government, in office for the entire time.
"The rest of the U.K. is doing fine".

Gorden Brown when asked to his face in parliament the same question said " well London is doing fine".

That was where the Labour AND Unionist party set the bar on child poverty..for the entire time they were in government...so did Sturgeon try to do more than that?

Who do you vote for, out of curiosity?

[Tichtheid]

Nicola Sturgeon 'absolutely failed' Scottish children - commissioner https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-65588466

Looks like another heavy dent in a rapidly diminishing legacy.

That’s not an entirely accurate representation of what he said, the “absolutely “ was an affirmative response to a question.

I’m left feeling like I did when the Blair years were being misrepresented, I felt very uneasy about “defending “ him, as I do with Sturgeon

Indy is about far more than the SNP

To be fair, the SNP have made Indy all about the SNP, so there can’t be many complaints

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by either statement there - there can't be many complaints about what?

[Slick]

That’s not an entirely accurate representation of what he said, the “absolutely “ was an affirmative response to a question.

I’m left feeling like I did when the Blair years were being misrepresented, I felt very uneasy about “defending “ him, as I do with Sturgeon

Indy is about far more than the SNP

To be fair, the SNP have made Indy all about the SNP, so there can’t be many complaints

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by either statement there - there can't be many complaints about what?

The SNP have , indisputably, spent years making Independence about them - an interesting article this week from the head of the Yes campaign saying he thinks they lost the referendum because the SNP made it all about them and funnelled cash to the party instead of the wider campaign.

So… you can’t complain about folk thinking independence is all about the SNP - see mental social media at the moment with people pledging their savings to the SNP because it’s the only way to independence

[Tichtheid]

To be fair, the SNP have made Indy all about the SNP, so there can’t be many complaints

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by either statement there - there can't be many complaints about what?

The SNP have , indisputably, spent years making Independence about them - an interesting article this week from the head of the Yes campaign saying he thinks they lost the referendum because the SNP made it all about them and funnelled cash to the party instead of the wider campaign.

So… you can’t complain about folk thinking independence is all about the SNP - see mental social media at the moment with people pledging their savings to the SNP because it’s the only way to independence

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

[Slick]

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by either statement there - there can't be many complaints about what?

The SNP have , indisputably, spent years making Independence about them - an interesting article this week from the head of the Yes campaign saying he thinks they lost the referendum because the SNP made it all about them and funnelled cash to the party instead of the wider campaign.

So… you can’t complain about folk thinking independence is all about the SNP - see mental social media at the moment with people pledging their savings to the SNP because it’s the only way to independence

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

And look what has changed. Nothing.

The charge is that they have taken over and excluded other voices. Only their brand is accepted. So we haven't heard from more moderate groups, people who can engage with people like me who are open minded but need real discussion and debate. They will always have their 45% but haven't moved beyond that with their idiotic brand of nonsense, so yes, in a way they are lying to people, because the only way to achieve it is to broaden that base which they are incapable of doing.

[Simian]

The SNP have , indisputably, spent years making Independence about them - an interesting article this week from the head of the Yes campaign saying he thinks they lost the referendum because the SNP made it all about them and funnelled cash to the party instead of the wider campaign.

So… you can’t complain about folk thinking independence is all about the SNP - see mental social media at the moment with people pledging their savings to the SNP because it’s the only way to independence

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

And look what has changed. Nothing.

The charge is that they have taken over and excluded other voices. Only their brand is accepted. So we haven't heard from more moderate groups, people who can engage with people like me who are open minded but need real discussion and debate. They will always have their 45% but haven't moved beyond that with their idiotic brand of nonsense, so yes, in a way they are lying to people, because the only way to achieve it is to broaden that base which they are incapable of doing.

What voices have they excluded? There is one other pro Indy voice (greens) and SNP have actively amplified it.

You do talk some amount of shite.

[Slick]

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

And look what has changed. Nothing.

The charge is that they have taken over and excluded other voices. Only their brand is accepted. So we haven't heard from more moderate groups, people who can engage with people like me who are open minded but need real discussion and debate. They will always have their 45% but haven't moved beyond that with their idiotic brand of nonsense, so yes, in a way they are lying to people, because the only way to achieve it is to broaden that base which they are incapable of doing.

What voices have they excluded? There is one other pro Indy voice (greens) and SNP have actively amplified it.

You do talk some amount of shite.

For their own ends. And look where that has got them.

Great you're back.

[Biffer]

The SNP have , indisputably, spent years making Independence about them - an interesting article this week from the head of the Yes campaign saying he thinks they lost the referendum because the SNP made it all about them and funnelled cash to the party instead of the wider campaign.

So… you can’t complain about folk thinking independence is all about the SNP - see mental social media at the moment with people pledging their savings to the SNP because it’s the only way to independence

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

And look what has changed. Nothing.

The charge is that they have taken over and excluded other voices. Only their brand is accepted. So we haven't heard from more moderate groups, people who can engage with people like me who are open minded but need real discussion and debate. They will always have their 45% but haven't moved beyond that with their idiotic brand of nonsense, so yes, in a way they are lying to people, because the only way to achieve it is to broaden that base which they are incapable of doing.

They will always have their 45%

A couple of years before the ref it was They'll always have their 33%

In the nineties it was They'll always have their 25%.

I'm not defending the SNP. But this attitude that it'll just sit where it is, is wrong

[Slick]

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

And look what has changed. Nothing.

The charge is that they have taken over and excluded other voices. Only their brand is accepted. So we haven't heard from more moderate groups, people who can engage with people like me who are open minded but need real discussion and debate. They will always have their 45% but haven't moved beyond that with their idiotic brand of nonsense, so yes, in a way they are lying to people, because the only way to achieve it is to broaden that base which they are incapable of doing.

They will always have their 45%

A couple of years before the ref it was They'll always have their 33%

In the nineties it was They'll always have their 25%.

I'm not defending the SNP. But this attitude that it'll just sit where it is, is wrong

That's a fair enough point. I suppose I based that statement on the fact that Brexit, Boris, Truss etc hasn't really moved it so maybe it has reached it's limit for now, but of course you are right. Could also go down.

[Tichtheid]

The SNP have , indisputably, spent years making Independence about them - an interesting article this week from the head of the Yes campaign saying he thinks they lost the referendum because the SNP made it all about them and funnelled cash to the party instead of the wider campaign.

So… you can’t complain about folk thinking independence is all about the SNP - see mental social media at the moment with people pledging their savings to the SNP because it’s the only way to independence

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

And look what has changed. Nothing.

The charge is that they have taken over and excluded other voices. Only their brand is accepted. So we haven't heard from more moderate groups, people who can engage with people like me who are open minded but need real discussion and debate. They will always have their 45% but haven't moved beyond that with their idiotic brand of nonsense, so yes, in a way they are lying to people, because the only way to achieve it is to broaden that base which they are incapable of doing.

Who are these advocates of moderation that you want to hear from? The ones the SNP have shut down? For the record, on their manifesto page for the 2021 Scottish elections the SNP stated

This election is the most important in Scotland’s history.

As we begin rebuilding Scotland from the pandemic, at stake is who will shape our country’s future and determine the life chances of this and generations to come.

Should it be Scottish Governments – of whatever party – elected by the people of Scotland and with the priorities and interests of Scotland at heart?

Or Westminster governments that time and again we have rejected?

I bolded the bit that contradicts what you accuse them of, of excluding everyone and anyone who is not the SNP.

I think framing the debate as you're own open-mindedness versus the SNP's idiotic nonsense doesn't exactly allow for the exchange of views you claim to be calling for.

[Biffer]

Anyone that the SNP works with will just get accused of being SNP lite, or SNP by the back door in the same way that the Greens have.

[Tichtheid]

Anyone that the SNP works with will just get accused of being SNP lite, or SNP by the back door in the same way that the Greens have.

and Starmer is forced to rule out any workings with the SNP at Westminster well in advance, effectively ignoring the wishes of three quarters of the Scottish electorate, or 45/59 MPs

[inactionman]

Labour, Tories and Libdems are all against independence, the Greens are in favour.

When the SNP tell people that if they want independence that the best way of achieving that is to vote SNP, are they lying? The three big parties that are not Green wouldn't even hold a referendum.

I'm not sure what the charge is, is it "the SNP have hampered independence by calling for people to vote for a party which has independence as their main tenet, one which will actually allow you to vote in a referendum"?

For what it's worth, polling has shown a pretty consistent lead for No for several months now, single figures but still a lead. I've always thought that for a Yes vote to win they'd need a long trail of at least a 15% lead in order to account for last minute cold feet.
It's not going away, but I think Indy is not going to happen for some time yet, decades at least.

And look what has changed. Nothing.

The charge is that they have taken over and excluded other voices. Only their brand is accepted. So we haven't heard from more moderate groups, people who can engage with people like me who are open minded but need real discussion and debate. They will always have their 45% but haven't moved beyond that with their idiotic brand of nonsense, so yes, in a way they are lying to people, because the only way to achieve it is to broaden that base which they are incapable of doing.

Who are these advocates of moderation that you want to hear from? The ones the SNP have shut down? For the record, on their manifesto page for the 2021 Scottish elections the SNP stated

This election is the most important in Scotland’s history.

As we begin rebuilding Scotland from the pandemic, at stake is who will shape our country’s future and determine the life chances of this and generations to come.

Should it be Scottish Governments – of whatever party – elected by the people of Scotland and with the priorities and interests of Scotland at heart?

Or Westminster governments that time and again we have rejected?

I bolded the bit that contradicts what you accuse them of, of excluding everyone and anyone who is not the SNP.

I think framing the debate as you're own open-mindedness versus the SNP's idiotic nonsense doesn't exactly allow for the exchange of views you claim to be calling for.

I think that 's mixing senses a bit.

The SNP were quite clear that they didn't actually view themselves as necessarily being the party to lead an independent Scotland, and so other parties would of course ply a role. The part you quoted is about that - what happens after independence in the event of a yes majority. (I'd state I thought the SNP were being mealy-mouthed here, as they were essentially admitting to being not up to the job but saying it would all be alright on the night)

If I read Slick correctly, he is lamenting that the SNP have tied themselves and the movement towards independence together, and we can't have a realistic talk about independence outside of the framing provided by the SNP. And, of course, without utterly exhausting, utterly unself-aware diatribes about Westminster. (apols to Slick if I misrepresent)

I moved to Scotland about 5 years ago and therefore saw the referendum only from a neighbour's point of view (although it would of course impact everyone in the UK so it's not alien to me), so I've no real comment on the referendum itself from a Scottish voter's point of view, but since moving I've come to dislike the SNP quite strongly. I'd rather other parities and persons took a hold on the discussions around independence - which I'll come clean and state I'm currently reasonably strongly opposed to, but my opinion is there to be changed, but it's unlikely to be changed by dogmatic idiots and chancers.

[Tichtheid]

The SNP were quite clear that they didn't actually view themselves as necessarily being the party to lead an independent Scotland, and so other parties would of course ply a role. The part you quoted is about that - what happens after independence in the event of a yes majority. (I'd state I thought the SNP were being mealy-mouthed here, as they were essentially admitting to being not up to the job but saying it would all be alright on the night)

Full disclosure, I grew up in a largely SNP family, some of the grandees of the party of the 60s and 70s were regular visitors to my grandparents' house. I've never really been a supporter of the party and I've certainly never been a member.

My feeling towards them has always been that they are a vehicle and that post-indy they would fade as a party. I don't know that for sure of course, perhaps they would carry on - it would be difficult to immediately disband, but over time I wouldn't imagine they will be what they are now.
So I disagree that they are saying that they are not up to the job, on the contrary they are saying that Indy is not all about them, it's about representation of the Scottish electorate and facilitating the situation where they make their own choices.

If I read Slick correctly, he is lamenting that the SNP have tied themselves and the movement towards independence together, and we can't have a realistic talk about independence outside of the framing provided by the SNP. And, of course, without utterly exhausting, utterly unself-aware diatribes about Westminster. (apols to Slick if I misrepresent)

A friend once said that you can't be moderately independent any more than someone can be moderately pregnant - indy is a binary state, even if you choose to work with others, eg with the EU.

With that in mind, I'm not sure what other framing of a the debate is possible, but I'm all ears. What would a "reasonable non-SNP" proposition for independence look like?

[inactionman]

The SNP were quite clear that they didn't actually view themselves as necessarily being the party to lead an independent Scotland, and so other parties would of course ply a role. The part you quoted is about that - what happens after independence in the event of a yes majority. (I'd state I thought the SNP were being mealy-mouthed here, as they were essentially admitting to being not up to the job but saying it would all be alright on the night)

Full disclosure, I grew up in a largely SNP family, some of the grandees of the party of the 60s and 70s were regular visitors to my grandparents' house. I've never really been a supporter of the party and I've certainly never been a member.

My feeling towards them has always been that they are a vehicle and that post-indy they would fade as a party. I don't know that for sure of course, perhaps they would carry on - it would be difficult to immediately disband, but over time I wouldn't imagine they will be what they are now.
So I disagree that they are saying that they are not up to the job, on the contrary they are saying that Indy is not all about them, it's about representation of the Scottish electorate and facilitating the situation where they make their own choices.

If I read Slick correctly, he is lamenting that the SNP have tied themselves and the movement towards independence together, and we can't have a realistic talk about independence outside of the framing provided by the SNP. And, of course, without utterly exhausting, utterly unself-aware diatribes about Westminster. (apols to Slick if I misrepresent)

A friend once said that you can't be moderately independent any more than someone can be moderately pregnant - it's a binary state, even if you choose to work with others, eg with the EU.

With that in mind, I'm not sure what other framing of a the debate is possible, but I'm all ears. What would a "reasonable non-SNP" proposition for independence look like?

I think that's really the crux of it - the choice of independence is a huge one, and it can't just be a matter of dogma. I appreciate independence itself is a binary call, but that's not to say someone can't see pros and cons and make a reasoned decision and adjust that decision as circumstances change. That's what I'd refer to as moderate - tipping one way or the other, with ability to change based upon at least a modicum of objectivity.

To echo earlier points, this is one of the major places where I can't get on board with the SNP - if I don't accept their article of faith re. independence, I've nothing to offer them and they've nothing to offer me despite being my local government.

I remember Sturgeon saying she had decided Scotland needed independence at the age of 16 - how on God's Green earth can you make that call at 16, with all its complexity and implication, and never even contemplate shifting?

To answer your question, I suppose what I'm really looking for is a party who reasonably address local issues and whose default solution isn't 'independence' or 'bloody Westminster'.

To your point about the SNP fading away, my reservation is mostly that they couldn't answer certain questions (where to start - currency, for one) as they'd never approached the overall issue objectively - they've taken a position and are working backwards. They're essentially saying someone else, cleverer than us, will sort it all out later - fingers crossed and with a fair wind. To me, as a now Scottish voter, that's not a compelling argument.

[Tichtheid]

The SNP were quite clear that they didn't actually view themselves as necessarily being the party to lead an independent Scotland, and so other parties would of course ply a role. The part you quoted is about that - what happens after independence in the event of a yes majority. (I'd state I thought the SNP were being mealy-mouthed here, as they were essentially admitting to being not up to the job but saying it would all be alright on the night)

Full disclosure, I grew up in a largely SNP family, some of the grandees of the party of the 60s and 70s were regular visitors to my grandparents' house. I've never really been a supporter of the party and I've certainly never been a member.

My feeling towards them has always been that they are a vehicle and that post-indy they would fade as a party. I don't know that for sure of course, perhaps they would carry on - it would be difficult to immediately disband, but over time I wouldn't imagine they will be what they are now.
So I disagree that they are saying that they are not up to the job, on the contrary they are saying that Indy is not all about them, it's about representation of the Scottish electorate and facilitating the situation where they make their own choices.

If I read Slick correctly, he is lamenting that the SNP have tied themselves and the movement towards independence together, and we can't have a realistic talk about independence outside of the framing provided by the SNP. And, of course, without utterly exhausting, utterly unself-aware diatribes about Westminster. (apols to Slick if I misrepresent)

A friend once said that you can't be moderately independent any more than someone can be moderately pregnant - it's a binary state, even if you choose to work with others, eg with the EU.

With that in mind, I'm not sure what other framing of a the debate is possible, but I'm all ears. What would a "reasonable non-SNP" proposition for independence look like?

I think that's really the crux of it - the choice of independence is a huge one, and it can't just be a matter of dogma. I appreciate independence itself is a binary call, but that's not to say someone can't see pros and cons and make a reasoned decision and adjust that decision as circumstances change. That's what I'd refer to as moderate - tipping one way or the other, with ability to change based upon at least a modicum of objectivity.

To echo earlier points, this is one of the major places where I can't get on board with the SNP - if I don't accept their article of faith re. independence, I've nothing to offer them and they've nothing to offer me despite being my local government.

I remember Sturgeon saying she had decided Scotland needed independence at the age of 16 - how on God's Green earth can you make that call at 16, with all its complexity and implication, and never even contemplate shifting?

I'm a bit pressed for time, so I'll have to be brief, I think this way of thinking comes from a simple question, is England a country? Is Scotland a country?
Should the people of Scotland choose their own parliament and their own way of being governed?
Some say yes some say no.

After that, it's all the mechanics of it, the currency, the affiliations with Europe, the relationship with the rest of the UK, the legal ramifications etc, those are all "how". I'm not for one instant dismissing these as easy, but they are not insurmountable. Some might think that the voters in Scotland should make their own choices, but the "how" is too difficult. Some might think that what is best for Scotland is to remain part of a bigger entity.

To answer your question, I suppose what I'm really looking for is a party who reasonably address local issues and whose default solution isn't 'independence' or 'bloody Westminster'.

To be fair, then you are not looking for any reasonable or moderate offer of independence, rather it sounds like you'd prefer it to be off the table.
That's a valid point of view, but it's not the same thing as the SNP or anyone else putting forward a softened version of indy.

[robmatic]

After that, it's all the mechanics of it, the currency, the affiliations with Europe, the relationship with the rest of the UK, the legal ramifications etc, those are all "how". I'm not for one instant dismissing these as easy, but they are not insurmountable. Some might think that the voters in Scotland should make their own choices, but the "how" is too difficult. Some might think that what is best for Scotland is to remain part of a bigger entity.

I dunno, we are entering year 7 of Brexit and the mechanics of that decision turned out to be somewhat important. I wish people had thought a bit more about the 'how' before we set off down that route.

[inactionman]

Full disclosure, I grew up in a largely SNP family, some of the grandees of the party of the 60s and 70s were regular visitors to my grandparents' house. I've never really been a supporter of the party and I've certainly never been a member.

My feeling towards them has always been that they are a vehicle and that post-indy they would fade as a party. I don't know that for sure of course, perhaps they would carry on - it would be difficult to immediately disband, but over time I wouldn't imagine they will be what they are now.
So I disagree that they are saying that they are not up to the job, on the contrary they are saying that Indy is not all about them, it's about representation of the Scottish electorate and facilitating the situation where they make their own choices.




A friend once said that you can't be moderately independent any more than someone can be moderately pregnant - it's a binary state, even if you choose to work with others, eg with the EU.

With that in mind, I'm not sure what other framing of a the debate is possible, but I'm all ears. What would a "reasonable non-SNP" proposition for independence look like?

I think that's really the crux of it - the choice of independence is a huge one, and it can't just be a matter of dogma. I appreciate independence itself is a binary call, but that's not to say someone can't see pros and cons and make a reasoned decision and adjust that decision as circumstances change. That's what I'd refer to as moderate - tipping one way or the other, with ability to change based upon at least a modicum of objectivity.

To echo earlier points, this is one of the major places where I can't get on board with the SNP - if I don't accept their article of faith re. independence, I've nothing to offer them and they've nothing to offer me despite being my local government.

I remember Sturgeon saying she had decided Scotland needed independence at the age of 16 - how on God's Green earth can you make that call at 16, with all its complexity and implication, and never even contemplate shifting?

I'm a bit pressed for time, so I'll have to be brief, I think this way of thinking comes from a simple question, is England a country? Is Scotland a country?
Should the people of Scotland choose their own parliament and their own way of being governed?
Some say yes some say no.

After that, it's all the mechanics of it, the currency, the affiliations with Europe, the relationship with the rest of the UK, the legal ramifications etc, those are all "how". I'm not for one instant dismissing these as easy, but they are not insurmountable. Some might think that the voters in Scotland should make their own choices, but the "how" is too difficult. Some might think that what is best for Scotland is to remain part of a bigger entity.

To answer your question, I suppose what I'm really looking for is a party who reasonably address local issues and whose default solution isn't 'independence' or 'bloody Westminster'.

To be fair, then you are not looking for any reasonable or moderate offer of independence, rather it sounds like you'd prefer it to be off the table.
That's a valid point of view, but it's not the same thing as the SNP or anyone else putting forward a softened version of indy.

Top-down or bottom-up. Induction or deduction. That seems to be the difference.

I'll support independence if it makes sense (noting of course that heart and history will be at least a small factor, so the benefits need to be compelling), not as some matter of ancient historical legacy. Anyone in any position of authority promoting it absolutely needs to address all concerns if they (with any degree of honesty) claim independence will be beneficial. Otherwise we end up with brexit-buses promising lands of milk and honey that - funnily enough - fail to materialise. To be honest that's my biggest problem - much like proponents of brexit, I simply don't trust the opinion (or, sadly, really the word) of those in government who ardently support independence as I doubt the sincere objectivity of their statements.

I appreciate there will be a whole stack of uncertainties and emergent impacts that can't be forecast or foreseen, which adds risk (and hence should require more compelling evidence of benefits, not less) but there are clear questions that have not been satisfactory answered and that - in my world, of pros and cons - can't go unchallenged. If you're simply more comfortable saying that you just want a separate Scotland, regardless of consequence and outcome (or that you trust that it will be beneficial), that's entirely fine. I state that to say we're never going to agree, but that's OK. Just don't expect me to tolerate the ongoing sniping of the SNP with any degree of good grace.

I have a little trouble making the following argument, as I support any society's right to choose, but it's something I find so curious. England and Scotland were joined over 300 years ago into a United Kingdom. Wessex was a Kingdom until Ethelred unified England 1,000-odd years ago. How far back shall we go? Many parts of what was Wessex suffer under the first past-the-post Westminster model and I personally think much of England would be better off outside of London's influence and gravity. I still don't think an independent Wessex is the way to go (not simply as the capital would be fucking Wilton or Winchester). I appreciate Scotland is clearly more distinct in terms of customs, culture and language than old Wessex is from England (mostly as the Anglo-Saxons wiped pretty much everything out) but the point remains.

Re. the bolded - it needs to be off the table unless there's a reason for it to be on the table. It's not a standing item for a Holyrood government, and it utterly, absolutely should not colour every conversation about UK matters.

[inactionman]

Anyway, I've laboured my point well past the onset of tedium, and talk of an independent Wessex don't really belong on a Scottish politics thread.

[Biffer]

I think that's really the crux of it - the choice of independence is a huge one, and it can't just be a matter of dogma. I appreciate independence itself is a binary call, but that's not to say someone can't see pros and cons and make a reasoned decision and adjust that decision as circumstances change. That's what I'd refer to as moderate - tipping one way or the other, with ability to change based upon at least a modicum of objectivity.

I have an issue with this - independence is a long term, macro decision. So changing views depending on short term economic trends of a few years, whether to yes or no, is not a reasonable way to approach it.

[inactionman]

I think that's really the crux of it - the choice of independence is a huge one, and it can't just be a matter of dogma. I appreciate independence itself is a binary call, but that's not to say someone can't see pros and cons and make a reasoned decision and adjust that decision as circumstances change. That's what I'd refer to as moderate - tipping one way or the other, with ability to change based upon at least a modicum of objectivity.

I have an issue with this - independence is a long term, macro decision. So changing views depending on short term economic trends of a few years, whether to yes or no, is not a reasonable way to approach it.

I'm not referring to taking a short-term view - just no-one can/should have a concrete, set-in-stone opinion over something that is so vast in scope.

I'm going to be poncy and provide a quote from Bernard Shaw:

Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

At present, I'd be against independence and quite strongly so. As in everything, I'm open to being persuaded or to considering compelling evidence or argument. I just have huge difficulty having any meaningful discussion with many who support independence, as in far too many cases it's an article of faith which is impossible to debate (I exclude present and immediate company from this). If they didn't arrive at a position by logic, you can't logically debate it - and, more importantly, it won't change your mind.

[Dogbert]

Did you get married purely on Logic ?

[Biffer]

I think that's really the crux of it - the choice of independence is a huge one, and it can't just be a matter of dogma. I appreciate independence itself is a binary call, but that's not to say someone can't see pros and cons and make a reasoned decision and adjust that decision as circumstances change. That's what I'd refer to as moderate - tipping one way or the other, with ability to change based upon at least a modicum of objectivity.

I have an issue with this - independence is a long term, macro decision. So changing views depending on short term economic trends of a few years, whether to yes or no, is not a reasonable way to approach it.

I'm not referring to taking a short-term view - just no-one can/should have a concrete, set-in-stone opinion over something that is so vast in scope.

I'm going to be poncy and provide a quote from Bernard Shaw:

Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

At present, I'd be against independence and quite strongly so. As in everything, I'm open to being persuaded or to considering compelling evidence or argument. I just have huge difficulty having any meaningful discussion with many who support independence, as in far too many cases it's an article of faith which is impossible to debate (I exclude present and immediate company from this). If they didn't arrive at a position by logic, you can't logically debate it - and, more importantly, it won't change your mind.

No argument with that, just the tipping one way and the other bit suggested more changing views with short term, single election issues which I don't think is really right for this issue

[inactionman]

Did you get married purely on Logic ?

I chose my SIPP provider purely based on logic.

You're not actually comparing marriage to my life partner with making a call around a policy decision, are you? If I had applied cold, hard logic to my family I'd never have had any kids.

If the implication is that choice of independence should be from the heart, I disagree but I don't doubt that's where many yes (and, indeed, no) voters come from.

[inactionman]

I have an issue with this - independence is a long term, macro decision. So changing views depending on short term economic trends of a few years, whether to yes or no, is not a reasonable way to approach it.

I'm not referring to taking a short-term view - just no-one can/should have a concrete, set-in-stone opinion over something that is so vast in scope.

I'm going to be poncy and provide a quote from Bernard Shaw:

Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

At present, I'd be against independence and quite strongly so. As in everything, I'm open to being persuaded or to considering compelling evidence or argument. I just have huge difficulty having any meaningful discussion with many who support independence, as in far too many cases it's an article of faith which is impossible to debate (I exclude present and immediate company from this). If they didn't arrive at a position by logic, you can't logically debate it - and, more importantly, it won't change your mind.

No argument with that, just the tipping one way and the other bit suggested more changing views with short term, single election issues which I don't think is really right for this issue

I think many people will take a while to firm up their position on independence, but once made I can't see it readily changing unless there's some seismic factor (think Boris/Truss/Kamikwazi)

[Dogbert]

Did you get married purely on Logic ?

I chose my SIPP provider purely based on logic.

You're not actually comparing marriage to my life partner with making a call around a policy decision, are you? If I had applied cold, hard logic to my family I'd never have had any kids.

If the implication is that choice of independence should be from the heart, I disagree but I don't doubt that's where many yes (and, indeed, no) voters come from.

No,of course the choice of independence ( or wanting to stay part of the Union) should be based purely from an emotional point of view , but it does ( like marriage & any relationship) have an influence , to a larger or smaller degree

The independence debate is much larger than just a policy decision.

Anyway I have more beer to drink , and a Rugby match to watch - cold hard logic would suggest that the cost of watching Glasgow win the Challenge cup tonight was financially a very poor policy decision

Emotionally , I have no regrets

[Slick]

I suppose it's only human to have a bit of hope, and I hoped Humza wouldn't be as bad as everyone predicted, but here we are.

Selectively quoting the Tennents letter was outstandingly stupid. It just looks do desperate and all his social media warriors who slavishly used it all weekend now looking like idiots. I do wonder if he thought he'd get away with it due to the fear for anyone putting their hand up when Sturgeon was there, but that fear has gone now.

Who'd of thought an SNP First Minister would also become the biggest champion of devolution.

It's all so depressing.

[Tichtheid]

From and article in the Gruaniad a couple of months ago

Plans by Westminster to block Scottish bottle deposit scheme a ‘travesty’

Environmental campaigners furious Alister Jack intends to deny trade exemption for bottle recycling proposals

Blocking the Scottish deposit return scheme for bottles would be an environmental travesty, campaigners have said, in a growing backlash to the UK government plans to undermine the project.

The charity City to Sea, which has been pushing for a deposit return scheme (DRS) to tackle plastic pollution, said the UK government could have avoided the clash with Scotland by working with the devolved countries to deliver a unified deposit scheme years ago. Instead Westminster had repeatedly delayed its own deposit scheme, which was only coming into force in 2025 – seven years after it was first promised by ministers.

“Westminster is at risk of dragging the devolved nations down to the lowest environmental standards as they sit on their hands and the plastic crisis worsens around them,” said Steve Hynd, City to Sea’s policy manager.
“We have deposit return schemes operational in over 50 places around the world … they massively contribute to reducing litter, increasing recycling rates, and help to tackle the climate crisis.

“If Westminster blocks the Scottish scheme from going ahead it will not just be a constitutional crisis but an environmental travesty.”

There is fury among environmental groups after Alister Jack, the Scotland secretary, made clear he intends to deny a request from the SNP government for a trade exemption for its flagship recycling scheme, in a move that experts say could fatally undermine the plans.

Scottish ministers have been planning the DRS for years, with Lorna Slater, the green minister, calling it a “massive national undertaking”, involving 4,000 producers, 10,000 “takeback” machines, and 2bn drinks containers.

The DRS is due to start in August in Scotland and is a key part of the SNP-Scottish Green party coalition deal, which is already under threat after the departure of Nicola Sturgeon as first minister.

Megan Randles, a political campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: “Not content with fumbling their own attempts at an effective DRS, the UK government is trying to kibosh Scotland’s more ambitious scheme.

“The Westminster government often claims they’re world leaders in tackling plastic waste but these actions yet again show them failing to fulfil that mantra.”

Jack also appeared to be trying to reopen the debate about a DRS by suggesting that it would be bad for business and consumers. The UK government, however, backs a DRS that will run in a similar way to the Scottish scheme: retailers would add 20p to the price of single-use bottles and cans, that consumers could then reclaim by returning them to be recycled.


The latest consultation in 2021 for a DRS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland showed widespread support, with 83% of respondents in favour.

The England, Wales and Northern Ireland scheme was promised by the then environment secretary Michael Gove in 2018. But there have been five years of delays, at least two consultations, a long period of silence, and then this year the government announced it would not be comprehensive and would come into operation only in 2025.

Unlike the Scottish DRS, the UK government has rolled back on its 2019 manifesto commitment and is not including glass in its deposit scheme. The Welsh government, however, is introducing a comprehensive scheme, like Scotland, to include glass bottles.

The Westminster government has always known Scotland was independently pursuing a DRS that was not likely to be streamlined with its own. In January the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Scotland is moving forward with its own DRS delivery. We will continue to work across all four nations on how the schemes interact.”

Izzy Ross, campaigns manager for the charity Surfers Against Sewage, said: “The government has had years to raise concerns but are instead meddling at this late stage, causing chaos after years of planning and investment. The longer the wait for a deposit return scheme, the more plastic will be permitted to flood into the ocean.”

A coalition of 15 environmental groups warned there would be “environmental, economic and legal implications” if the UK government blocked the introduction of the Scottish scheme.

“Any attempt to disrupt or undermine this would have serious negative consequences for schemes in the rest of the UK, and on broader circular economy ambitions,” the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland said on Twitter.

Across the UK, consumers get through an estimated 13bn plastic drinks bottles a year. Only 7.5bn are recycled. The remaining 5.5bn are landfilled, littered or incinerated. Each day UK consumers use 38.5m plastic bottles.

Other countries have successfully introduced deposit schemes. Last January, Slovakia became the 11th country in Europe to introduce a deposit scheme, which led to the return of 100m plastic bottles and metal cans in the first five months of its operation.

[Slick]

It’s a stupid article by people who don’t understand it.

Almost the entire industry in Scotland is against it in its current form, but a tiny charity from Bristol says it’s fine

[inactionman]

I need to read up a bit more on this, I've not followed details but watched with great interest the recycling facility being built at my local Aldi.

Is the intent to essentially recover, clean, and re-use the bottles in the same way again? They'd surely need to be redesigned and differently manufactured to do this, although I suppose that's best done after the ability to recover and reuse is in place. I went to Copenhagen about 15 years ago where I first saw this plastic recycling in widespread action, and that's how it operated - there's a standard bottle size that all manufacturers use, and all that changed was the label. The plastic bottle was - obviously - a lot hardier than the single use type.

I'd think mass reuse of glass in this way would be a lot tricker, but suspect they'd just continue to crush it down and reuse the raw material - that process, along with the sheer weight of glass, has it's own environmental impact.

[Tichtheid]

It’s a stupid article by people who don’t understand it.

Almost the entire industry in Scotland is against it in its current form, but a tiny charity from Bristol says it’s fine

Greenpeace, Surfers Against Sewage and the Green Party are not a tiny charity from Bristol.

From the Times yesterday

"The letter to Jack, from Andrea Pozzi, managing director of C&C Tennent’s, insists that the company wants a UK-wide scheme, not just a Scottish version."

So they are not against the scheme, but they don't want a solely Scottish scheme, which is pretty much the thrust of the article ie that there could have been a UK-wide scheme as it was in the Tory manifesto in previous elections.

[Tichtheid]

I need to read up a bit more on this, I've not followed details but watched with great interest the recycling facility being built at my local Aldi.

Is the intent to essentially recover, clean, and re-use the bottles in the same way again? They'd surely need to be redesigned and differently manufactured to do this, although I suppose that's best done after the ability to recover and reuse is in place. I went to Copenhagen about 15 years ago where I first saw this plastic recycling in widespread action, and that's how it operated - there's a standard bottle size that all manufacturers use, and all that changed was the label. The plastic bottle was - obviously - a lot hardier than the single use type.

I'd think mass reuse of glass in this way would be a lot tricker, but suspect they'd just continue to crush it down and reuse the raw material - that process, along with the sheer weight of glass, has it's own environmental impact.

When I was a kid we used to take glass lemonade bottles back to the shop and get a deposit back on them.