The Scottish Politics Thread

[Northern Lights]

The SNP have driven the tribalism to an extent that if you’re part of them you can’t show dissent. They never have backbench rebellions, not one of their MSP’s has voted against the party line during this parliament. Putin would be proud of that loyalty.
We are meant to have a representative democracy so that your local msp will actually stand up for the local populace on occasion it doesn’t chime with national issues, this simply doesn’t get close to happening with them.
The SNP supporters on here and the rest of social media are the same, they don’t criticise them, they move straight to deflection and just go “but the nasty tories or England is worse”

[Caley_Red]

The SNP have driven the tribalism to an extent that if you’re part of them you can’t show dissent. They never have backbench rebellions, not one of their MSP’s has voted against the party line during this parliament. Putin would be proud of that loyalty.
We are meant to have a representative democracy so that your local msp will actually stand up for the local populace on occasion it doesn’t chime with national issues, this simply doesn’t get close to happening with them.
The SNP supporters on here and the rest of social media are the same, they don’t criticise them, they move straight to deflection and just go “but the nasty tories or England is worse”

In the long run, it ends up reflecting badly on the parliamentary party: Several legislative debacles could have been avoided if just a couple of supine MSPs thought the Named Person Act, the Football Behaviours Act, Anti-Free Speech Act (to name but a few) were not to be judged on their stated intentions but rather the detail of the legislation.

[clydecloggie]

The SNP have driven the tribalism to an extent that if you’re part of them you can’t show dissent. They never have backbench rebellions, not one of their MSP’s has voted against the party line during this parliament. Putin would be proud of that loyalty.
We are meant to have a representative democracy so that your local msp will actually stand up for the local populace on occasion it doesn’t chime with national issues, this simply doesn’t get close to happening with them.
The SNP supporters on here and the rest of social media are the same, they don’t criticise them, they move straight to deflection and just go “but the nasty tories or England is worse”

In the long run, it ends up reflecting badly on the parliamentary party: Several legislative debacles could have been avoided if just a couple of supine MSPs thought the Named Person Act, the Football Behaviours Act, Anti-Free Speech Act (to name but a few) were not to be judged on their stated intentions but rather the detail of the legislation.

There's the rub. The intentions of e.g. the Named Persons and Football Behaviour Acts are quite honourable, but the legal detail tends to be problematic. It's worrying that the more independent-minded legal types in the SNP (like Joanna Cherry) are being sidelined.

As with most things in this constitutional debate, the delicious irony for the next decade or so probably is that if you want to get rid of the one-party political landscape in Scotland your best strategy is probably to vote for independence, as post-independence the SNP will undoubtedly fracture .

In that video I posted on the last page, John Curtice makes the point that the (political) unity of the independence movement is probably its strongest weapon - The SNP are the only game in town, just like the Tories were the only game in town if you were a Brexiteer in the last Westminster GE. And that very same fact that gave BoJo his thumping majority will probably give Sturgeon hers next year, leading to a big problem for BoJo and the possible dissolution of the UK. If the independence movement fractures (e.g. through a big surge for the Greens or, more likely, a system-gaming pro-Indy list-only party led by a big gun like Salmond), the moral pressure on BoJo to adhere to the democratically settled will of the Scottish people expressed as a clear SNP majority would be greatly reduced.

Interesting times.

[Northern Lights]

The SNP have driven the tribalism to an extent that if you’re part of them you can’t show dissent. They never have backbench rebellions, not one of their MSP’s has voted against the party line during this parliament. Putin would be proud of that loyalty.
We are meant to have a representative democracy so that your local msp will actually stand up for the local populace on occasion it doesn’t chime with national issues, this simply doesn’t get close to happening with them.
The SNP supporters on here and the rest of social media are the same, they don’t criticise them, they move straight to deflection and just go “but the nasty tories or England is worse”

In the long run, it ends up reflecting badly on the parliamentary party: Several legislative debacles could have been avoided if just a couple of supine MSPs thought the Named Person Act, the Football Behaviours Act, Anti-Free Speech Act (to name but a few) were not to be judged on their stated intentions but rather the detail of the legislation.

There's the rub. The intentions of e.g. the Named Persons and Football Behaviour Acts are quite honourable, but the legal detail tends to be problematic. It's worrying that the more independent-minded legal types in the SNP (like Joanna Cherry) are being sidelined.

As with most things in this constitutional debate, the delicious irony for the next decade or so probably is that if you want to get rid of the one-party political landscape in Scotland your best strategy is probably to vote for independence, as post-independence the SNP will undoubtedly fracture .

In that video I posted on the last page, John Curtice makes the point that the (political) unity of the independence movement is probably its strongest weapon - The SNP are the only game in town, just like the Tories were the only game in town if you were a Brexiteer in the last Westminster GE. And that very same fact that gave BoJo his thumping majority will probably give Sturgeon hers next year, leading to a big problem for BoJo and the possible dissolution of the UK. If the independence movement fractures (e.g. through a big surge for the Greens or, more likely, a system-gaming pro-Indy list-only party led by a big gun like Salmond), the moral pressure on BoJo to adhere to the democratically settled will of the Scottish people expressed as a clear SNP majority would be greatly reduced.

Interesting times.

Or alternatively people actually prioritise what matters to them along the lines of another opinion poll which when asked what matters to them, Indy came 7th or so on the list.

The SNP are not good at execution and are infact becoming worse, no surprise this happens to all parties when they have been in power as long as they have. We desparately need a new crowd to take over and sweep out a lot of the shite that has been going on under the SNP's watch.

A lot can happen between now and May, let's see if Sturgeon's star is still shinning so bright come then. She hasnt got any answers on how we actually live with this virus, only a default option of lockdown, which is just killing the economy and in turn is losing her votes. Going through repeated lockdowns is not sustainable in the long run. A large amount of people up here are ignoring the lockdown rules now, it's simply unenforcable the 5 mile travel rule etc. They really need a new plan as can be seen none of this outbreak has led to hospital admissions, so what's the long term plan Nicola, people will not accept this curtailment on their freedom, which ironically is what the Indy movement espouse.

[Slick]

As I've said many time on here, unless you live elsewhere for a while I think it's difficult to understand how not normal the political discourse is up here. It's the one and only thing that makes me wonder about staying.

With regards to the SNP not breaking ranks, annoying as it is, it's what independance movements have to do to achieve their goals and I can't really argue with it. It's not healthy, but if that is their only goal, they have to do it. In saying that, I can see it splintering in the next year or so. Salmond just has too much ego not to take an opportunity to come back. Once that happens all bets are off.

All these acts that have gone badly is due to the fact that they have very little talent at their disposal in my opinion, both on the front line and in the civil service - the fact the civil service is becoming ever more politicised is going to make this worse. Humza as Justice Secretary.... jesus.

[Northern Lights]

As I've said many time on here, unless you live elsewhere for a while I think it's difficult to understand how not normal the political discourse is up here. It's the one and only thing that makes me wonder about staying.

With regards to the SNP not breaking ranks, annoying as it is, it's what independance movements have to do to achieve their goals and I can't really argue with it. It's not healthy, but if that is their only goal, they have to do it. In saying that, I can see it splintering in the next year or so. Salmond just has too much ego not to take an opportunity to come back. Once that happens all bets are off.

All these acts that have gone badly is due to the fact that they have very little talent at their disposal in my opinion, both on the front line and in the civil service - the fact the civil service is becoming ever more politicised is going to make this worse. Humza as Justice Secretary.... jesus.

Yeah but it not just him though, look at all the main office holders - Freeman on Health, Forbes in Finance, Hyslop as Business, Swinney in Education. Every one of them is so out of their depth and so hopeless at their brief it is truly scary. Sturgeon is clearly a very good orator, arguable the best in the UK but her leadership skills and decision making imo are very suspect, she has not built a capable team around her and crushes any dissent. I would have a lot more faith that we could make a decent fist of being an Independent country if we got shot of this lot but the cronyism is now worse than it was under Labour. People really need to wake up that we need the foundations a hell of a lot stronger before we then push to do it all ourselves. Of course there is no rational reason we couldnt run ourselves, economically we would be poorer for a while until we got our economy sorted but as is oft trotted out plenty of other countries our size and with our resources manage very well, our big problem starts and ends with our political class, they are very weak but then who in their right mind would get into politics and put up with the abuse from the opposing faction, sorry life is far too short.

[Caley_Red]

The SNP have driven the tribalism to an extent that if you’re part of them you can’t show dissent. They never have backbench rebellions, not one of their MSP’s has voted against the party line during this parliament. Putin would be proud of that loyalty.
We are meant to have a representative democracy so that your local msp will actually stand up for the local populace on occasion it doesn’t chime with national issues, this simply doesn’t get close to happening with them.
The SNP supporters on here and the rest of social media are the same, they don’t criticise them, they move straight to deflection and just go “but the nasty tories or England is worse”

In the long run, it ends up reflecting badly on the parliamentary party: Several legislative debacles could have been avoided if just a couple of supine MSPs thought the Named Person Act, the Football Behaviours Act, Anti-Free Speech Act (to name but a few) were not to be judged on their stated intentions but rather the detail of the legislation.

There's the rub. The intentions of e.g. the Named Persons and Football Behaviour Acts are quite honourable, but the legal detail tends to be problematic. It's worrying that the more independent-minded legal types in the SNP (like Joanna Cherry) are being sidelined.

As with most things in this constitutional debate, the delicious irony for the next decade or so probably is that if you want to get rid of the one-party political landscape in Scotland your best strategy is probably to vote for independence, as post-independence the SNP will undoubtedly fracture .

In that video I posted on the last page, John Curtice makes the point that the (political) unity of the independence movement is probably its strongest weapon - The SNP are the only game in town, just like the Tories were the only game in town if you were a Brexiteer in the last Westminster GE. And that very same fact that gave BoJo his thumping majority will probably give Sturgeon hers next year, leading to a big problem for BoJo and the possible dissolution of the UK. If the independence movement fractures (e.g. through a big surge for the Greens or, more likely, a system-gaming pro-Indy list-only party led by a big gun like Salmond), the moral pressure on BoJo to adhere to the democratically settled will of the Scottish people expressed as a clear SNP majority would be greatly reduced.

Interesting times.

And leave the country to a decade (possibly more) of swingeing unemployment, mass emigration punctuated by repeated recessions? A currency crisis, a debt crisis and public spending cuts that would give Varoufakis cold sweats? I've already emigrated but I have lots of family and friends back home and in all good conscience, I couldn't subject them to that irrespective of how inept Sturgeon's stewardship of the country currently is.

I cannot stress how much worse Scotland's position is relative to 2014: public finances are far worse, fiscal deficit is gigantic, national debt c100% of GDP, productivity in the doldrums, Brexit implications and the country is more reliant on banking, insurance and asset management (much of which will drift out of Scotland in the years following a 'yes' vote).

The one thing I'll say, if there is another referendum then Scots abroad should be allowed to vote, an absolute moral imperative, particularly the ones who live in the rest of the UK.

[Biffer]

In the long run, it ends up reflecting badly on the parliamentary party: Several legislative debacles could have been avoided if just a couple of supine MSPs thought the Named Person Act, the Football Behaviours Act, Anti-Free Speech Act (to name but a few) were not to be judged on their stated intentions but rather the detail of the legislation.

There's the rub. The intentions of e.g. the Named Persons and Football Behaviour Acts are quite honourable, but the legal detail tends to be problematic. It's worrying that the more independent-minded legal types in the SNP (like Joanna Cherry) are being sidelined.

As with most things in this constitutional debate, the delicious irony for the next decade or so probably is that if you want to get rid of the one-party political landscape in Scotland your best strategy is probably to vote for independence, as post-independence the SNP will undoubtedly fracture .

In that video I posted on the last page, John Curtice makes the point that the (political) unity of the independence movement is probably its strongest weapon - The SNP are the only game in town, just like the Tories were the only game in town if you were a Brexiteer in the last Westminster GE. And that very same fact that gave BoJo his thumping majority will probably give Sturgeon hers next year, leading to a big problem for BoJo and the possible dissolution of the UK. If the independence movement fractures (e.g. through a big surge for the Greens or, more likely, a system-gaming pro-Indy list-only party led by a big gun like Salmond), the moral pressure on BoJo to adhere to the democratically settled will of the Scottish people expressed as a clear SNP majority would be greatly reduced.

Interesting times.

And leave the country to a decade (possibly more) of swingeing unemployment, mass emigration punctuated by repeated recessions? A currency crisis, a debt crisis and public spending cuts that would give Varoufakis cold sweats? I've already emigrated but I have lots of family and friends back home and in all good conscience, I couldn't subject them to that irrespective of how inept Sturgeon's stewardship of the country currently is.

I cannot stress how much worse Scotland's position is relative to 2014: public finances are far worse, fiscal deficit is gigantic, national debt c100% of GDP, productivity in the doldrums, Brexit implications and the country is more reliant on banking, insurance and asset management (much of which will drift out of Scotland in the years following a 'yes' vote).

The one thing I'll say, if there is another referendum then Scots abroad should be allowed to vote, an absolute moral imperative, particularly the ones who live in the rest of the UK.

It’s not about Scots, it’s about Scotland. So the people who vote are the people who live here.

[Northern Lights]

There's the rub. The intentions of e.g. the Named Persons and Football Behaviour Acts are quite honourable, but the legal detail tends to be problematic. It's worrying that the more independent-minded legal types in the SNP (like Joanna Cherry) are being sidelined.

As with most things in this constitutional debate, the delicious irony for the next decade or so probably is that if you want to get rid of the one-party political landscape in Scotland your best strategy is probably to vote for independence, as post-independence the SNP will undoubtedly fracture .

In that video I posted on the last page, John Curtice makes the point that the (political) unity of the independence movement is probably its strongest weapon - The SNP are the only game in town, just like the Tories were the only game in town if you were a Brexiteer in the last Westminster GE. And that very same fact that gave BoJo his thumping majority will probably give Sturgeon hers next year, leading to a big problem for BoJo and the possible dissolution of the UK. If the independence movement fractures (e.g. through a big surge for the Greens or, more likely, a system-gaming pro-Indy list-only party led by a big gun like Salmond), the moral pressure on BoJo to adhere to the democratically settled will of the Scottish people expressed as a clear SNP majority would be greatly reduced.

Interesting times.

And leave the country to a decade (possibly more) of swingeing unemployment, mass emigration punctuated by repeated recessions? A currency crisis, a debt crisis and public spending cuts that would give Varoufakis cold sweats? I've already emigrated but I have lots of family and friends back home and in all good conscience, I couldn't subject them to that irrespective of how inept Sturgeon's stewardship of the country currently is.

I cannot stress how much worse Scotland's position is relative to 2014: public finances are far worse, fiscal deficit is gigantic, national debt c100% of GDP, productivity in the doldrums, Brexit implications and the country is more reliant on banking, insurance and asset management (much of which will drift out of Scotland in the years following a 'yes' vote).

The one thing I'll say, if there is another referendum then Scots abroad should be allowed to vote, an absolute moral imperative, particularly the ones who live in the rest of the UK.

It’s not about Scots, it’s about Scotland. So the people who vote are the people who live here.

Yep, agree 100% on this, it's the ones who live here, work here, contribute to life in Scotland that get the vote. We are the ones that are affected by the vote whichever way it goes and will hvae to deal with the respective fallout.

[Caley_Red]

And leave the country to a decade (possibly more) of swingeing unemployment, mass emigration punctuated by repeated recessions? A currency crisis, a debt crisis and public spending cuts that would give Varoufakis cold sweats? I've already emigrated but I have lots of family and friends back home and in all good conscience, I couldn't subject them to that irrespective of how inept Sturgeon's stewardship of the country currently is.

I cannot stress how much worse Scotland's position is relative to 2014: public finances are far worse, fiscal deficit is gigantic, national debt c100% of GDP, productivity in the doldrums, Brexit implications and the country is more reliant on banking, insurance and asset management (much of which will drift out of Scotland in the years following a 'yes' vote).

The one thing I'll say, if there is another referendum then Scots abroad should be allowed to vote, an absolute moral imperative, particularly the ones who live in the rest of the UK.

It’s not about Scots, it’s about Scotland. So the people who vote are the people who live here.

Yep, agree 100% on this, it's the ones who live here, work here, contribute to life in Scotland that get the vote. We are the ones that are affected by the vote whichever way it goes and will hvae to deal with the respective fallout.

Think we'll have to disagree on this, it is about Scots as well as Scotland: many left to seek work elsewhere and they shouldn't be denied a say in a country that many would like to return to.

By the same token, I can vote in UK and Scottish elections because I am a citizen, I don't see why the franchise should be gerrymandered from the existing electoral franchise.

[Northern Lights]

Think we'll have to disagree on this, it is about Scots as well as Scotland: many left to seek work elsewhere and they shouldn't be denied a say in a country that many would like to return to.

By the same token, I can vote in UK and Scottish elections because I am a citizen, I don't see why the franchise should be gerrymandered from the existing electoral franchise.

The problem is where is the cutoff with these things, some leave initially intending for it only to be a couple of years or so but end up living abroad for th rest of their lives as they meet someone, career opportunities etc etc.

If you can vote in the elections for the UK and Scottish elections you will be on the electoral register and eligible to vote in any referendum, you must have a postal address in Scotland for this.

[Biffer]

It’s not about Scots, it’s about Scotland. So the people who vote are the people who live here.

Yep, agree 100% on this, it's the ones who live here, work here, contribute to life in Scotland that get the vote. We are the ones that are affected by the vote whichever way it goes and will hvae to deal with the respective fallout.

Think we'll have to disagree on this, it is about Scots as well as Scotland: many left to seek work elsewhere and they shouldn't be denied a say in a country that many would like to return to.

By the same token, I can vote in UK and Scottish elections because I am a citizen, I don't see why the franchise should be gerrymandered from the existing electoral franchise.

That's an ethnic nationalist point of view.

[Caley_Red]

Yep, agree 100% on this, it's the ones who live here, work here, contribute to life in Scotland that get the vote. We are the ones that are affected by the vote whichever way it goes and will hvae to deal with the respective fallout.

Think we'll have to disagree on this, it is about Scots as well as Scotland: many left to seek work elsewhere and they shouldn't be denied a say in a country that many would like to return to.

By the same token, I can vote in UK and Scottish elections because I am a citizen, I don't see why the franchise should be gerrymandered from the existing electoral franchise.

That's an ethnic nationalist point of view.

Your point makes no logical sense unless you start from the position that all Scots are white.

[robmatic]

Think we'll have to disagree on this, it is about Scots as well as Scotland: many left to seek work elsewhere and they shouldn't be denied a say in a country that many would like to return to.

By the same token, I can vote in UK and Scottish elections because I am a citizen, I don't see why the franchise should be gerrymandered from the existing electoral franchise.

The problem is where is the cutoff with these things, some leave initially intending for it only to be a couple of years or so but end up living abroad for th rest of their lives as they meet someone, career opportunities etc etc.

If you can vote in the elections for the UK and Scottish elections you will be on the electoral register and eligible to vote in any referendum, you must have a postal address in Scotland for this.

I emigrated in 2013/2014 and I can still vote in elections but I didn't get to vote in the last referendum.

[Biffer]

Think we'll have to disagree on this, it is about Scots as well as Scotland: many left to seek work elsewhere and they shouldn't be denied a say in a country that many would like to return to.

By the same token, I can vote in UK and Scottish elections because I am a citizen, I don't see why the franchise should be gerrymandered from the existing electoral franchise.

That's an ethnic nationalist point of view.

Your point makes no logical sense unless you start from the position that all Scots are white.

Ethnic nationalism is not always about race.

[Northern Lights]

Think we'll have to disagree on this, it is about Scots as well as Scotland: many left to seek work elsewhere and they shouldn't be denied a say in a country that many would like to return to.

By the same token, I can vote in UK and Scottish elections because I am a citizen, I don't see why the franchise should be gerrymandered from the existing electoral franchise.

The problem is where is the cutoff with these things, some leave initially intending for it only to be a couple of years or so but end up living abroad for th rest of their lives as they meet someone, career opportunities etc etc.

If you can vote in the elections for the UK and Scottish elections you will be on the electoral register and eligible to vote in any referendum, you must have a postal address in Scotland for this.

I emigrated in 2013/2014 and I can still vote in elections but I didn't get to vote in the last referendum.

You won't for the Scottish elections or for an MP in a Scottish constituency.

[Caley_Red]

That's an ethnic nationalist point of view.

Your point makes no logical sense unless you start from the position that all Scots are white.

Ethnic nationalism is not always about race.

Let’s try and add a bit of transparency to motives here, i think that your primary concern is not the integrity of the franchise at all, but rather that allowing overseas Scots to vote would be fatal to the nationalist cause. There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, it is completely legitimate but let's drop the obfuscation.
Although my position has the useful by-product of slanting the odds in my referendum view, it predominantly derives from the moral philosophy of material choices I'll inevitably face: whether to dump my current citizenship for another, for example. I should have a say in this outcome, if it goes against me then so be it but I should have a say in matters that fundamentally affect me.

[Biffer]

Your point makes no logical sense unless you start from the position that all Scots are white.

Ethnic nationalism is not always about race.

Let’s try and add a bit of transparency to motives here, i think that your primary concern is not the integrity of the franchise at all, but rather that allowing overseas Scots to vote would be fatal to the nationalist cause. There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, it is completely legitimate but let's drop the obfuscation.
Although my position has the useful by-product of slanting the odds in my referendum view, it predominantly derives from the moral philosophy of material choices I'll inevitably face: whether to dump my current citizenship for another, for example. I should have a say in this outcome, if it goes against me then so be it but I should have a say in matters that fundamentally affect me.

Actually, I would say that expats are more prone to misty eyed romantic notions of their own country than those that live there, so the portion that is of that nature is more likely to be pro independence. I don't think expat votes will make much difference overall, but I still believe that a vote about the nature of a place should consist of the people who live in that place.

[Caley_Red]

Ethnic nationalism is not always about race.

Let’s try and add a bit of transparency to motives here, i think that your primary concern is not the integrity of the franchise at all, but rather that allowing overseas Scots to vote would be fatal to the nationalist cause. There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, it is completely legitimate but let's drop the obfuscation.
Although my position has the useful by-product of slanting the odds in my referendum view, it predominantly derives from the moral philosophy of material choices I'll inevitably face: whether to dump my current citizenship for another, for example. I should have a say in this outcome, if it goes against me then so be it but I should have a say in matters that fundamentally affect me.

Actually, I would say that expats are more prone to misty eyed romantic notions of their own country than those that live there, so the portion that is of that nature is more likely to be pro independence. I don't think expat votes will make much difference overall, but I still believe that a vote about the nature of a place should consist of the people who live in that place.

That's whataboutery, an extension of the franchise would determine that hypothetical. You could even have a simple rule that dual citizens cannot vote, that would hyphen off that cohort who have alternative citizenship to fall back on.
Your point does nothing to undermine mine: there is a strong moral case for letting people who may ultimately be stripped of their citizenship have a say in the matter. I also note your point does not address- what I suspect to be- your primary motivation in limiting the franchise. If you're wanting to get cute about it then why should, as an egregious example, a US academic with a two year visiting professorship at Edinburgh be allowed to vote yet someone who moved to London at the age of 28 for a promotion not?

[Northern Lights]

Let’s try and add a bit of transparency to motives here, i think that your primary concern is not the integrity of the franchise at all, but rather that allowing overseas Scots to vote would be fatal to the nationalist cause. There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, it is completely legitimate but let's drop the obfuscation.
Although my position has the useful by-product of slanting the odds in my referendum view, it predominantly derives from the moral philosophy of material choices I'll inevitably face: whether to dump my current citizenship for another, for example. I should have a say in this outcome, if it goes against me then so be it but I should have a say in matters that fundamentally affect me.

Actually, I would say that expats are more prone to misty eyed romantic notions of their own country than those that live there, so the portion that is of that nature is more likely to be pro independence. I don't think expat votes will make much difference overall, but I still believe that a vote about the nature of a place should consist of the people who live in that place.

That's whataboutery, an extension of the franchise would determine that hypothetical. You could even have a simple rule that dual citizens cannot vote, that would hyphen off that cohort who have alternative citizenship to fall back on.
Your point does nothing to undermine mine: there is a strong moral case for letting people who may ultimately be stripped of their citizenship have a say in the matter. I also note your point does not address- what I suspect to be- your primary motivation in limiting the franchise. If you're wanting to get cute about it then why should, as an egregious example, a US academic with a two year visiting professorship at Edinburgh be allowed to vote yet someone who moved to London at the age of 28 for a promotion not?

You would still be a British citizen and if you were voting to remain part of the UK that shouldnt matter should it?

I do think there are more than enough Sean Connery's kicking about that would vote for Indy to outweigh the rest, the ones living in England/rest of UK would probably back the Union though, albeit there will be exceptions.

[robmatic]

The problem is where is the cutoff with these things, some leave initially intending for it only to be a couple of years or so but end up living abroad for th rest of their lives as they meet someone, career opportunities etc etc.

If you can vote in the elections for the UK and Scottish elections you will be on the electoral register and eligible to vote in any referendum, you must have a postal address in Scotland for this.

I emigrated in 2013/2014 and I can still vote in elections but I didn't get to vote in the last referendum.

You won't for the Scottish elections or for an MP in a Scottish constituency.

I do vote in UK elections for a Scottish constituency but couldn't for the referendum.

[Northern Lights]

I emigrated in 2013/2014 and I can still vote in elections but I didn't get to vote in the last referendum.

You won't for the Scottish elections or for an MP in a Scottish constituency.

I do vote in UK elections for a Scottish constituency but couldn't for the referendum.

No idea how this works in that case as i have freakily just done the eligibility to vote for our local assessor and that just requires us to by postcode put in who is eligible at our property. If you're living overseas no idea how they allocate your vote to a constituency if you dont live in that constituency as we are a representative democracy and i struggle to see how you have a Scottish constituency when you arent here.

[westport]

I see the belters were out at Edinburgh airport yesterday with their England out of Scotland banners. Obviously not got a job to go too.

[Yr Alban]

The Referendum Act earlier this year is now Scots law. It stipulates how a referendum will be conducted in Scotland, including the franchise. Westminster can’t change that unless they pass legislation specifically to overrule it, which they might, but it wouldn’t be a good look. They might as well openly state their intention to rig the vote.

Gove and Galloway discussing how to move the goalposts is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Whatever you might think of the SNP, the Referendum Act is one of two things they have recently done which may turn out to be far more significant than was apparent at the time. The other was getting the HoC to vote on the Claim of Right.

[tc27]

Holyrood can't bind Parliament and specially the legislation that would enable the necessary transfer of powers for a binding referendum would also set the question and franchise probaly going by the Electoral Commission's recommendation.

I suspect no S30 will come this Parliament however.

[Yr Alban]

Holyrood can't bind Parliament and specially the legislation that would enable the necessary transfer of powers for a binding referendum would also set the question and franchise probaly going by the Electoral Commission's recommendation.

I suspect no S30 will come this Parliament however.

I don’t think that the act specified anything about the question (because it wasn’t specific to an Indyref) but it was very specific about the franchise. Of course, Westminster could overrule this (which is, in itself, one of the strongest arguments there is for independence) but to do so they would have to ignore both the precedent of 2014 and existing Scots law. Really not a good look.

[tc27]

The Scottish Parliament under the SNP and Greens has passed a number of bills that are either ultra vires and concern reservedareas (EU continuity act, Referendum bill, and now the needless legilsation to disrupt the UK single market).

The sole intention is to create the impression of 'not a good look' when they get ruled as out of bounds. Not too sure that too much regard should be given to them.

[Slick]

Holyrood can't bind Parliament and specially the legislation that would enable the necessary transfer of powers for a binding referendum would also set the question and franchise probaly going by the Electoral Commission's recommendation.

I suspect no S30 will come this Parliament however.

I don’t think that the act specified anything about the question (because it wasn’t specific to an Indyref) but it was very specific about the franchise. Of course, Westminster could overrule this (which is, in itself, one of the strongest arguments there is for independence) but to do so they would have to ignore both the precedent of 2014 and existing Scots law. Really not a good look.

That's really just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not listening!". It's a fairly important part of the whole discussion but you just wave it through.

[Biffer]

123 positive tests in the last 24 hours, not good.

78 in Tayside, so the outbreak at the chicken processing factory is at the heart of it.

45 cases across the rest of Scotland is broadly in line with the numbers for most of the rest of this month, but still higher than most of us would like.

More than 8000 tests in the last day, just under 7000 the day before, 8000 the day before that so it seems the testing system is kicking up a gear around the Tayside cluster.

[Yr Alban]

Holyrood can't bind Parliament and specially the legislation that would enable the necessary transfer of powers for a binding referendum would also set the question and franchise probaly going by the Electoral Commission's recommendation.

I suspect no S30 will come this Parliament however.

I don’t think that the act specified anything about the question (because it wasn’t specific to an Indyref) but it was very specific about the franchise. Of course, Westminster could overrule this (which is, in itself, one of the strongest arguments there is for independence) but to do so they would have to ignore both the precedent of 2014 and existing Scots law. Really not a good look.

That's really just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not listening!". It's a fairly important part of the whole discussion but you just wave it through.

Sorry, what am I waving through? Not clear from what you posted.

There is a lot of posturing going from the Tories, but this is exactly what happened in 2014. Westminster were going to decide the question (they didn’t). They were going to decide the date (they didn’t). They were going to decide the franchise (they didn’t - in fact the voting age was lowered to 16, which they opposed). No matter what Gove says, nobody outside Scotland is going to get to vote. Apart from anything else, if you offer a vote to Scots in England, then you logically have to offer it to Scots in NZ, Canada, the USA, Australia, etc. It’s unworkable and it simply isn’t going to happen. It’s just Gove trying to look macho and failing,

[Biffer]

Give is attempting to further build the sense of grievance.

[Northern Lights]

I don’t think that the act specified anything about the question (because it wasn’t specific to an Indyref) but it was very specific about the franchise. Of course, Westminster could overrule this (which is, in itself, one of the strongest arguments there is for independence) but to do so they would have to ignore both the precedent of 2014 and existing Scots law. Really not a good look.

That's really just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not listening!". It's a fairly important part of the whole discussion but you just wave it through.

Sorry, what am I waving through? Not clear from what you posted.

There is a lot of posturing going from the Tories, but this is exactly what happened in 2014. Westminster were going to decide the question (they didn’t). They were going to decide the date (they didn’t). They were going to decide the franchise (they didn’t - in fact the voting age was lowered to 16, which they opposed). No matter what Gove says, nobody outside Scotland is going to get to vote. Apart from anything else, if you offer a vote to Scots in England, then you logically have to offer it to Scots in NZ, Canada, the USA, Australia, etc. It’s unworkable and it simply isn’t going to happen. It’s just Gove trying to look macho and failing,

Alternatively it can be viewed that Salmond got everything he asked for, he was allowed to choose the question, he was allowed to choose the date and was allowed to decide the franchise - guess what he still lost even when he gamed it to its absolute max.

All Gove is doing is saying that they wont roll over the same this time on these 3 points, you had your once in a generation shot and it didnt work, to have a second once in a generation shot there will be higher hurdles to cross which is not unreasonable as we cant be having referendums on the same question twice a decade.

[Slick]

From the ST

The coronavirus has sunk the economic case for Scottish independence, the former director-general for devolution has claimed as Nicola Sturgeon’s administration prepares to publish this year’s figures on the gap between what Scotland spends and raises in tax.

Ahead of this week’s release of the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) data, Professor Jim Gallagher, who held the Whitehall post from 2007 to 2010, warns that the country faces a “staggering” and worsening deficit: about four times as large proportionately than the UK as a whole.

Gallagher has produced an analysis using figures from the Scottish government’s fiscal commission and statistics published quarterly by Sturgeon’s administration and HM Revenue and Customs.

Writing in The Sunday Times, the academic, who advised the Better Together campaign in 2014, says the figures are for 2019-20 and are only just touched by the coronavirus, but will still look worse than the year before.

Philip Rycroft, who was permanent secretary in the UK’s Brexit department until last year, has also warned that an independent Scotland would face grave problems.

He said these included an unsustainable fiscal deficit, hard choices on currency, challenging costs building a new state and confusion on pensions, with an economic risk to businesses and uncertainty over EU membership.

Oil revenues have plummeted to about a tenth of the Scottish government’s 2014 predictions for the first year of independence, while income tax has grown less than in the rest of the UK, with fewer well-paid jobs than expected.

Gallagher argues that the coronavirus profoundly changes the context, with Scotland among the worst countries affected in terms of its national economy, the number of deaths and the depth of the recession.

Economic activity is down by nearly a quarter and more than 900,000 Scots are furloughed.

“Scotland starts, structurally, from a weaker place. Its deficit will be even more staggering, probably well over 25% of gross domestic product,” says Gallagher.

“That’s like borrowing the whole budget of the Scottish parliament in one year. No small country on its own could sustain that,” he writes. He argues that hard truths on jobs “can’t just be waved away with fantasy fiscal policies”.

Meanwhile, a group of Scottish business people has highlighted the economic case for Scotland remaining in the UK.

The new body, part of Scottish Business UK, has spoken to Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, with a view to working together ahead of the Holyrood elections on May 6. It will also look to unite with other groups opposed to independence.

A spokeswoman for Kate Forbes, the finance secretary, said: “It is the case for the union which is sinking fast, and desperate, hyperbolic attacks like this are one of the reasons why.

“Every single country on earth is being impacted economically by the pandemic. The difference for Scotland is not, as Mr Gallagher implies, that we are uniquely incapable of tackling it but because, unlike most countries large and small, we don’t have the full economic powers to do so.”

Rycroft, writing in Prospect magazine, said the risk facing an independent Scotland would be severe. He claimed independence would be a drag on growth in the rest of the UK, affecting thousands of businesses.

He said: “For Northern Ireland, a UK shorn of Scotland would hardly make continued adherence to the union more attractive. The secession of Scotland would likely accelerate the already evident trend of increasing support for reunification.

“That would leave England, with a truculent Wales in tow, reduced to its 17th-century borders, a rump state off the north-west European continent, surrounded by the EU.”

[Slick]

Another

Like the rose gold version of the Apple iPhone or graphic T-shirts, worrying about the recession is a bit passé. A belief that the economic chickens will eventually come home to roost is just so 2008. Forget about a balanced budget, the cool crew has moved on to modern monetary theory (MMT). The pale, male and stale central bankers of yesteryear have been usurped by smiley, upbeat Stephanie Kelton, poster girl for MMT.

This is just as well, as Scotland’s current recession makes the 4% downturn the country suffered during the financial crash look like a minor hiccup. Between April and June this year, Scottish GDP fell by 19.7%. This comes on the back of a 2.5% drop in the first quarter.

Forestry and fishing contracted by 5.7%, manufacturing fell by 15.8%, service sector output was down by 19.2%, and construction output plummeted 41.1%. The only thing that fell further was our sense of optimism.

This is hardly surprising given that the country effectively went into hibernation on March 23 and five months later remains in a semi-comatose state. Offices are not due to open until September 14 at the earliest.

With the nation furloughed at home and dining out on Dishi Rishi, there is little inducement to examine how this unprecedented handout will be paid for. There is every incentive to grab hold of economic theories that suggest it may never have to be.

In a world where nothing seems certain, anything is theoretically possible. Compared with a modern magic monetary tree, the long hard slog back to prosperity is unappealing.

But for all the attractions of MMT, defying the fundamental laws of economics is no more feasible than flouting the laws of physics, as the victims of such experiments — from the Weimar Republic to Venezuela — can attest only too well.

But if Scotland’s situation is alarming, its future recovery is a real cause for concern. Last week, business leaders from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that they feared “Scotland’s economic landscape may never recover to previous levels”. The Fraser of Allander Institute, part of the University of Strathclyde, said “Scotland is not performing well when compared internationally” and predicted that any recovery was likely to be slow.

These economists believe it will be years before sectors such as accommodation, food services, transport and communications return to pre-crisis levels. Even if an expected upturn in the figures for July and August lifts the country out of recession, they predict “a wave of unemployment” coming down the track once the furlough scheme is removed.

So why is the Scottish government not more concerned about the economy? Partly, it is a dearth of economic understanding and experience among senior ministers. The finance secretary, Kate Forbes, is extremely bright, but she is a 30-year-old history graduate being expected to manage an economy that would challenge Milton Friedman.

In part, it is that the government has bought into the myth that young female leaders, in the Jacinda Arden mould, have managed the pandemic better than their male counterparts, despite a lack of evidence.

But mostly it is a deliberate strategy adopted by Nicola Sturgeon to eradicate coronavirus now in an effort to create a much stronger foundation for medium- to long-term economic recovery. That’s a perfectly valid attitude, but it is a huge gamble and it flies in the face of the approach being taken in just about every other western economy.

The first minister is in a position in which few leaders ever find themselves. Her party has been in power for 13 years. There is no effective political opposition in Scotland. She has few serious challengers and even fewer senior figures to whom she owes any allegiance.

Her reputation for caution and as a safe pair of hands masks the fact that there are virtually no restraints on her and few checks on her decision-making powers. She has not consulted the people or parliament on her approach. She can, however, point to the polls as vindication of her leadership.

It is Nicola versus the virus. If businesses and livelihoods are collateral damage in that epic battle, that is a price worth paying for lives saved. Except Nicola cannot beat the virus and she is unlikely to be the one paying the price.

Across Europe, as countries return to economic activity and human interaction increases, the disease surges. All the more reason to curb economic activity and human interaction, according to the first minister.

But at some point, changing customer behaviour and capacity constraints could tip the Scottish economy into a state from which medium- to long-term recovery becomes much less certain. If that happens, and as part of the union, Scotland will not be left to sink.

The great paradox is that in a wager in which the economic stakes could not be higher — will she kill the economy before she eliminates Covid? — support for independence grows ever stronger. The electorate seems prepared to vote to cut the one economic lifeline that could salvage Scotland if Sturgeon’s calculations prove incorrect. Economic continence is in short supply everywhere, but this is incredible.

Sturgeon’s predecessor, one-time mentor and now great nemesis liked a flutter. But Alex Salmond was an economist by training. He would never have bet on such a risk. This is Scotland’s great gamble, but England may well end up paying for it

[Big D]

Not going to lie. I am completely fed up of referendum talk.

By its nature it is divisive and frankly brings out the worst in people. In my relatively short voting career (I guess 17 years is short when votes are so infrequent) I have only ever face hostility twice at a polling station. Both times were during a referendum and both times by the side wanting to leave a union.

To be fair the second occasion I was a little cheeky to the leave campaigner when I replied "did I fuck" to his question about did I vote to leave the EU.

[tc27]

Not going to lie. I am completely fed up of referendum talk.

By its nature it is divisive and frankly brings out the worst in people. In my relatively short voting career (I guess 17 years is short when votes are so infrequent) I have only ever face hostility twice at a polling station. Both times were during a referendum and both times by the side wanting to leave a union.

To be fair the second occasion I was a little cheeky to the leave campaigner when I replied "did I fuck" to his question about did I vote to leave the EU.

The Scots I talk to online and in person are all pretty much in the same place even the ones who say they would vote for Independence...I think this is also supported by polling that shows only something like 30% want another vote within the next few years.

On the other hand I wonder what those outside of the zoomers saying they voting for the SNP next year thinks going to be top of the agenda? - it sure aint gonna be knuckling down to improve education or policing.

In related new Andrew Neil is obviously a bit bored on holiday and is bashing the cybernats about currency:

https://twitter.com/afneil

[Northern Lights]

Favourite columnist Mr Massie,

Alex Massie: Salmond inquiry that can’t ask questions
Ruling legitimate lines of investigation out of order makes it futile
Alex Massie
Sunday August 23 2020, 2.00am, The Sunday Times

Last week Leslie Evans, Scotland’s most senior civil servant, gave evidence to the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish government’s handling of harassment complaints made against former government ministers. It was, by any reasonable estimation, an unusual hearing. Asked if she was aware of suggestions that female civil servants had been advised to avoid being alone in the company of Alex Salmond, Evans replied: “I can’t comment on that.” This was remarkable in its own right but no less noteworthy than the decision of Linda Fabiani, the committee’s chairwoman, that such questions were out of order. Worse than that, in fact, they were inappropriate.

A reminder: the committee is not interested in relitigating the substance of the complaints made against Salmond — and Salmond was cleared of all charges in court. Its remit is “to consider and report on the actions of the first minister, Scottish government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond”. As such, the culture and working environment at Bute House and elsewhere would, to the layman, seem an entirely legitimate line of inquiry, for these matters would, you might think, form the basis for initial “concerns” that might later develop into formal “complaints”. And if the committee is not permitted to explore these things, in public, what can it investigate?

To which the answer may be: not a lot. A further exchange illustrates the point. Alex Cole-Hamilton asked Evans about a complaint lodged against Salmond in November 2017. Did Evans “signal” to Nicola Sturgeon or “anyone else” that this complaint had been made?

Evans confirmed that she was aware of, and told the first minister, about a separate, long-ago incident at Edinburgh airport, and “at the same time, I was told that other people were coming forward with concerns, not complaints. As they were concerns, they were not registered.” At which point, Evans said: “I am looking around to see whether the convener is comfortable with what I am saying.”

To which Fabiani replied: “I am afraid that I am becoming uncomfortable.” And that was, in effect, that. At the very least, this exchange fostered the impression — warranted or not — that Evans and the committee’s chairwoman had previously agreed upon what could — and more importantly, what could not — be discussed at the hearing. At the very least, it did not do much to support the contention that the committee will be permitted to investigate as it pleases. I can’t prove this, but I am beginning to think I can smell it.

But then perhaps this should not be a surprise either. Many of the documents provided to the committee have been redacted to the point of uselessness. This, as anyone who has submitted a freedom-of-information request to Victoria Quay will appreciate, is pretty much standard Scottish government procedure.

So those anticipating some bombshell finding when the committee concludes its work are likely to be disappointed. In part, this should come as no surprise. Much of this is opaque and, as is so often the case, there are many versions of the “truth” and some of them will contradict each other.

At Salmond’s trial, for instance, witnesses for the prosecution testified that procedures had been changed to ensure that Salmond was not left alone with female civil servants at night. At least one member of the “late team” would be a man. Defence witnesses, however, denied any knowledge of such a policy and at Holyrood last week Nicola Sturgeon said she was not aware of this alleged policy either.

On that point, I have no difficulty in believing the first minister. Why should she be expected to have been aware of personnel policy in Salmond’s private office? Equally, however, it requires little imagination to see how the conflicting accounts of this matter might be squared. There might easily have been such a policy but, since it could be implemented simply by changing civil service shift rotas, there would be little need to introduce it as a formal, written matter of instruction. An informal observance would suffice. Nor would one expect Salmond to be aware of such a subtle shift in procedure. Who would tell him, and would you wish to be the person tasked with having that conversation?

It would certainly seem quite a coincidence if, after a given date, there was always a male member of staff on duty in Bute House whereas, before that date, all-female shifts had been a reasonably common occurrence. I should not be surprised, though, if no records of these matters were made, let alone kept.

If so, this may not be the only gap in the written record. Salmond’s defence against one charge of attempted rape was that the woman in question had not even been in Bute House on the night of the alleged incident. This was a claim supported by at least one defence witness.

Ordinarily, you would think these diverging accounts could be settled by reference to a log kept of visitors to Bute House. Except it would seem that, once again, no records were kept of who came and went from the first minister’s official residence. Like so much else in Scottish politics, this merits a quizzical look. In other jurisdictions such records are kept. But it seems we do things differently in Scotland.

Those matters are somewhat separate from the committee’s investigations, but they point to this unwelcome fact, nonetheless: transparency is something often talked about in Scottish politics, but rarely practised. You may remember that extending the time permitted to answer freedom-of-information requests was one of the Scottish government’s first responses to the coronavirus crisis.

Regardless, in addition to being an innocent man, Alex Salmond may be right about one thing. It seems remarkable that Leslie Evans, having presided over a crippled inquiry into the complaints made against Salmond, not only remains in post but has seen her contract extended.

If Fabiani’s committee is to produce a report worth commissioning in the first place, it needs to answer some age-old questions. Who knew about the complaints made against Salmond? What did they know about the substance of these complaints? When did they know these things? And, then, knowing these things, what did they do next?

If these questions are not addressed, far less answered, then there is every possibility this entire exercise will prove a waste of time.

Worrying closing of ranks rather than getting to the bottom of this.

[Yr Alban]

That's really just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not listening!". It's a fairly important part of the whole discussion but you just wave it through.

Sorry, what am I waving through? Not clear from what you posted.

There is a lot of posturing going from the Tories, but this is exactly what happened in 2014. Westminster were going to decide the question (they didn’t). They were going to decide the date (they didn’t). They were going to decide the franchise (they didn’t - in fact the voting age was lowered to 16, which they opposed). No matter what Gove says, nobody outside Scotland is going to get to vote. Apart from anything else, if you offer a vote to Scots in England, then you logically have to offer it to Scots in NZ, Canada, the USA, Australia, etc. It’s unworkable and it simply isn’t going to happen. It’s just Gove trying to look macho and failing,

Alternatively it can be viewed that Salmond got everything he asked for, he was allowed to choose the question, he was allowed to choose the date and was allowed to decide the franchise - guess what he still lost even when he gamed it to its absolute max.

All Gove is doing is saying that they wont roll over the same this time on these 3 points, you had your once in a generation shot and it didnt work, to have a second once in a generation shot there will be higher hurdles to cross which is not unreasonable as we cant be having referendums on the same question twice a decade.

FFS. I know I shouldn’t encourage you, but stop perpetuating the lie. ‘Once in a generation’ was NEVER a promise - as you know very well. It has never appeared in any manifesto. Even if it had, a Scottish government has since been elected on a manifesto that DID include a commitment to hold another referendum in the event of significant constitutional change, such as Scotland being forced to leave the EU after voting to stay.

I’d really love to know how the SNP can be held to a promise that was never made, whilst the Unionist parties get a free pass for breaking every promise they made in the infamous ‘Vow’.

Oh, and by the way, there’s no actual limit on how many referendums Scotland can have, or on the time that has to elapse between them. If the voters vote for them, that’s what they should get, and without ‘higher hurdles’ which means nothing more than ‘mechanisms for cheating because you’re losing the argument’.

[Northern Lights]

Sorry, what am I waving through? Not clear from what you posted.

There is a lot of posturing going from the Tories, but this is exactly what happened in 2014. Westminster were going to decide the question (they didn’t). They were going to decide the date (they didn’t). They were going to decide the franchise (they didn’t - in fact the voting age was lowered to 16, which they opposed). No matter what Gove says, nobody outside Scotland is going to get to vote. Apart from anything else, if you offer a vote to Scots in England, then you logically have to offer it to Scots in NZ, Canada, the USA, Australia, etc. It’s unworkable and it simply isn’t going to happen. It’s just Gove trying to look macho and failing,

Alternatively it can be viewed that Salmond got everything he asked for, he was allowed to choose the question, he was allowed to choose the date and was allowed to decide the franchise - guess what he still lost even when he gamed it to its absolute max.

All Gove is doing is saying that they wont roll over the same this time on these 3 points, you had your once in a generation shot and it didnt work, to have a second once in a generation shot there will be higher hurdles to cross which is not unreasonable as we cant be having referendums on the same question twice a decade.

FFS. I know I shouldn’t encourage you, but stop perpetuating the lie. ‘Once in a generation’ was NEVER a promise - as you know very well. It has never appeared in any manifesto. Even if it had, a Scottish government has since been elected on a manifesto that DID include a commitment to hold another referendum in the event of significant constitutional change, such as Scotland being forced to leave the EU after voting to stay.

I’d really love to know how the SNP can be held to a promise that was never made, whilst the Unionist parties get a free pass for breaking every promise they made in the infamous ‘Vow’.

Oh, and by the way, there’s no actual limit on how many referendums Scotland can have, or on the time that has to elapse between them. If the voters vote for them, that’s what they should get, and without ‘higher hurdles’ which means nothing more than ‘mechanisms for cheating because you’re losing the argument’.

There really is no end to your deceit is there. It was constantly repeated by Salmond during the campaign, I know you Nats are desperately trying to wiggle out of this commitment and have taken to the airwaves of social media to protest as much.

There isnt a manifesto as such in a referendum but in the White paper that they published, the forward by Alec Salmond said the vote would be a "rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way".

Not to mention the numerous times he repeated this on the telly during the campaign in interviews, Sturgeon also used the phrase in the final Holyrood debate prior to the vote.

Nevermind education was meant to be Sturgeons top priority in this parliment, which she has spectaculairly failed on as well but yeah let us once again look to the Unionist party failings

[MoreOrLess]

Alternatively it can be viewed that Salmond got everything he asked for, he was allowed to choose the question, he was allowed to choose the date and was allowed to decide the franchise - guess what he still lost even when he gamed it to its absolute max.

All Gove is doing is saying that they wont roll over the same this time on these 3 points, you had your once in a generation shot and it didnt work, to have a second once in a generation shot there will be higher hurdles to cross which is not unreasonable as we cant be having referendums on the same question twice a decade.

FFS. I know I shouldn’t encourage you, but stop perpetuating the lie. ‘Once in a generation’ was NEVER a promise - as you know very well. It has never appeared in any manifesto. Even if it had, a Scottish government has since been elected on a manifesto that DID include a commitment to hold another referendum in the event of significant constitutional change, such as Scotland being forced to leave the EU after voting to stay.

I’d really love to know how the SNP can be held to a promise that was never made, whilst the Unionist parties get a free pass for breaking every promise they made in the infamous ‘Vow’.

Oh, and by the way, there’s no actual limit on how many referendums Scotland can have, or on the time that has to elapse between them. If the voters vote for them, that’s what they should get, and without ‘higher hurdles’ which means nothing more than ‘mechanisms for cheating because you’re losing the argument’.

There really is no end to your deceit is there. It was constantly repeated by Salmond during the campaign, I know you Nats are desperately trying to wiggle out of this commitment and have taken to the airwaves of social media to protest as much.

There isnt a manifesto as such in a referendum but in the White paper that they published, the forward by Alec Salmond said the vote would be a "rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way".

Not to mention the numerous times he repeated this on the telly during the campaign in interviews, Sturgeon also used the phrase in the final Holyrood debate prior to the vote.

Nevermind education was meant to be Sturgeons top priority in this parliment, which she has spectaculairly failed on as well but yeah let us once again look to the Unionist party failings

Even The National agrees it was said....we all just misinterpreted it and in fact they meant the exact opposite.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159 ... portunity/