NPR

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:43 pm Finally the EC has made it fairly clear a future referendum will not be on a 'yes/no' question.

What then? Remain/leave? Surely it will still be one question with two possible answers.

I don't think the wording of the question will be a decisive factor in the outcome, especially since it will be known well in advance so both sides will have plenty of time to educate their supporters about what to answer.

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:43 pm
EU membership was only identified as the most important issue by 15% of 'No voters.

I don't think that question goes deep enough, it's not just that the EU issue was the most important issue to 15%, it will have been a factor whilst perhaps being the second, third or fourth most important issue to others.

More importantly to my mind, and this is speculation on my part, it supports the argument that Scotland is ignored and doesn't matter to Westminster, not least because whatever party is in power there would have been so even if every vote in Scotland went to another party, and that has always been the case

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:43 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:37 pm I don't think there'll be much appetite for compromise from England in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

Unfortunately I agree. As Brexit has shown, England is more than happy to act against its own interests purely out of spite.

And also, the North of England would be most hit by Scottish independence and to the decision makers, the North barely matters. I don't think, other than the loss of face and the Union, London et al. would be too sad to see Scotland go or suffer too many ill effects from it.

I think it would be an absolute disaster paralysing both governments for a decade. Unravelling a 40 year loose union (in which neither side staked too much emotion for each other) took 3 and a half years of chaos, the omens aren't great.

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:43 pm

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:32 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:22 pm Interesting below the headline results from the Progress Scotland polling (that showed 53% for 'yes')



Only 5% support the only actual likely viable currency option.

Did they also ask how important the currency question is to making up their minds about independence?

I find it interesting that in today's STV poll, 58% would vote Yes while 55% agree that it would be tough economically.

In 2014, both sides quickly identified the hard No and hard Yes factions, and ignored them from that point onwards - it was all about the 'persuadables', and eventually No won out through Project Fear, with EU membership, the economy and the currency as probably the 3 biggest issues (not necessarily in that order) to make swing voters afraid about. The EU membership thing has backfired spectacularly since then, and I'm wondering if that big bang now echoes in the other two arguments - where people still see the issues around currency and economy but simply don't trust the No side to know what it is talking about because of how wrong it was on EU membership.

I'm also very happy with this poll, obviously

EU membership was only identified as the most important issue by 15% of 'No voters.

Likewise post 2016 polling on independence aside from a few blips largely static.

Whats changed is the perceived superior personnel/administrative performance of Sturgeon/Scotgov on CV19 and Boris Johnson.

Currency and economics is largely not being talked about at the moment because despite being in permanent campaign mode the nationalists (quite rationally) do not want to talk about it/ Likewise the fact that EU membership is arguably at least a decade away from Independent is also not really mentioned. Both of these may come back into focus if there is another referendum.

Finally the EC has made it fairly clear a future referendum will not be on a 'yes/no' question.

So, for 15% of no voters the most important issue has been flipped on its head. 15% of 55% is 8%.

That alone is enough to flip it, without adding in the Tory effect and changing demographics.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:50 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:43 pm Finally the EC has made it fairly clear a future referendum will not be on a 'yes/no' question.

What then? Remain/leave? Surely it will still be one question with two possible answers.

I don't think the wording of the question will be a decisive factor in the outcome, especially since it will be known well in advance so both sides will have plenty of time to educate their supporters about what to answer.

The wording does seem to have quite an effect bizarrely enough. Leave/Remain polls have quite differtent results from Yes/no.

Edit - it shouldn't be remain/leave either as that is too connected with the Brexit ref.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:52 pm

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:43 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:37 pm I don't think there'll be much appetite for compromise from England in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

Unfortunately I agree. As Brexit has shown, England is more than happy to act against its own interests purely out of spite.

And also, the North of England would be most hit by Scottish independence and to the decision makers, the North barely matters. I don't think, other than the loss of face and the Union, London et al. would be too sad to see Scotland go or suffer too many ill effects from it.

I think it would be an absolute disaster paralysing both governments for a decade. Unravelling a 40 year loose union (in which neither side staked too much emotion for each other) took 3 and a half years of chaos, the omens aren't great.

I really think people are failing to appreciate how difficult and contentious its going to be - there will be very little goodwill left.

A massive, massive step backwards.

This is from August 2019

Our recommendation
The referendum result should be one that all voters and referendum campaigners can accept and have confidence in. For that reason, we recommend changing the way the question is asked, so that it is more neutral.

Instead of asking ‘Do you agree..?’ we recommend the following wording:

‘Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes/No'

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ... m-question

The tweet itself has been deleted now, but Andrew Bowie (Con) put up the following message the other day

And this Internal Market Bill, is just the start. The UK Govt is back in Scotland. Get used to it.' ...

It was also at the end of an article he wrote for the Scotsman https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ ... ie-2999188

And also, the North of England would be most hit by Scottish independence and to the decision makers, the North barely matters. I don't think, other than the loss of face and the Union, London et al. would be too sad to see Scotland go or suffer too many ill effects from it.

The North wouldn’t be hit by Scottish independence....

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:52 pm

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:43 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:37 pm I don't think there'll be much appetite for compromise from England in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

Unfortunately I agree. As Brexit has shown, England is more than happy to act against its own interests purely out of spite.

And also, the North of England would be most hit by Scottish independence and to the decision makers, the North barely matters. I don't think, other than the loss of face and the Union, London et al. would be too sad to see Scotland go or suffer too many ill effects from it.

I think it would be an absolute disaster paralysing both governments for a decade. Unravelling a 40 year loose union (in which neither side staked too much emotion for each other) took 3 and a half years of chaos, the omens aren't great.

If the question was a binary yes/no I think you’re right. The UK won’t allow another referendum in that basis, I think they’d spell out in advance exactly what the leave deal would be.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm
If the question was a binary yes/no I think you’re right. The UK won’t allow another referendum in that basis, I think they’d spell out in advance exactly what the leave deal would be.

For the Yes supporters do you think this would be a fair way forward in that the negotiation happens before the vote and then we vote on what is known? Or a confirmatory referendum following a Yes vote?

It would take some of the unknowns out and not be so open to supposition, I am generally curious on that, as i think one of the big mistakes with the Brexit vote was not to have a binding confirmatory referendum following a Leave vote and as we have seen cakeism can be dispelled with this sort of approach.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:54 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm
If the question was a binary yes/no I think you’re right. The UK won’t allow another referendum in that basis, I think they’d spell out in advance exactly what the leave deal would be.

For the Yes supporters do you think this would be a fair way forward in that the negotiation happens before the vote and then we vote on what is known? Or a confirmatory referendum following a Yes vote?

It would take some of the unknowns out and not be so open to supposition, I am generally curious on that, as i think one of the big mistakes with the Brexit vote was not to have a binding confirmatory referendum following a Leave vote and as we have seen cakeism can be dispelled with this sort of approach.

Considering how dumb our current bunch are (demonstrably), Nothing would surprise me and they did a yes/no.

However the big question regarding currency and over all debt amounts , pensions etc I think would be clear before a vote, as much as they’ll say it’s a negotiation, time Frames would mean aspects of this going before the rest of the countrymin votes; Most Europeans viewed brexit with bemusement, most English given a leaving Scotland would be incredibly angry and the subsequent policy would follow.

I also think Farslane is a much bigger question than is being addressed seriously.

But an easy ride into the sunset wouldn’t happen.

Just as the response from the political EU has been predictable and required the same would occur here.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:00 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:54 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm
If the question was a binary yes/no I think you’re right. The UK won’t allow another referendum in that basis, I think they’d spell out in advance exactly what the leave deal would be.

For the Yes supporters do you think this would be a fair way forward in that the negotiation happens before the vote and then we vote on what is known? Or a confirmatory referendum following a Yes vote?

It would take some of the unknowns out and not be so open to supposition, I am generally curious on that, as i think one of the big mistakes with the Brexit vote was not to have a binding confirmatory referendum following a Leave vote and as we have seen cakeism can be dispelled with this sort of approach.

Considering how dumb our current bunch are (demonstrably), Nothing would surprise me and they did a yes/no.

However the big question regarding currency and over all debt amounts , pensions etc I think would be clear before a vote, as much as they’ll say it’s a negotiation, time Frames would mean aspects of this going before the rest of the countrymin votes; Most Europeans viewed brexit with bemusement, most English given a leaving Scotland would be incredibly angry and the subsequent policy would follow.

I also think Farslane is a much bigger question than is being addressed seriously.

But an easy ride into the sunset wouldn’t happen.

Just as the response from the political EU has been predictable and required the same would occur here.

I'm not saying it would be an easy ride into the sunset, far from it, everyone on this thread knows my views on it which is why im against it and not particularily wanting to go over old ground. We are not set up for referendums and direct democracy which is partly why the Brexit divorce has been such a shitshow, I do question if we were all asked again now do you want to leave the EU what the result would be (yes we havent got the deal yet but it is getting close, only need to trade away fisheries and cave on state subsidies and we are there).

Personally think Remain would have it and although could be viewed as an almighty waste of time would hopefully have dispelled the nonsense the likes of Farage and that came out with.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:00 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:54 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm
If the question was a binary yes/no I think you’re right. The UK won’t allow another referendum in that basis, I think they’d spell out in advance exactly what the leave deal would be.

For the Yes supporters do you think this would be a fair way forward in that the negotiation happens before the vote and then we vote on what is known? Or a confirmatory referendum following a Yes vote?

It would take some of the unknowns out and not be so open to supposition, I am generally curious on that, as i think one of the big mistakes with the Brexit vote was not to have a binding confirmatory referendum following a Leave vote and as we have seen cakeism can be dispelled with this sort of approach.

Considering how dumb our current bunch are (demonstrably), Nothing would surprise me and they did a yes/no.

However the big question regarding currency and over all debt amounts , pensions etc I think would be clear before a vote, as much as they’ll say it’s a negotiation, time Frames would mean aspects of this going before the rest of the countrymin votes; Most Europeans viewed brexit with bemusement, most English given a leaving Scotland would be incredibly angry and the subsequent policy would follow.

I also think Farslane is a much bigger question than is being addressed seriously.

But an easy ride into the sunset wouldn’t happen.

Just as the response from the political EU has been predictable and required the same would occur here.

I think a lease on Faslane would be inevitable (probably in exchange to keep building two or three more RN ships on the Clyde) but the fall back in 2014 was basing out of the US East Coast until a new facility was built.

In terms of RAF bases if the rUK wants to effectively keep patrolling the North sea against Russian air and naval incursions then they might also need to be leased. But the question has to be asked as to if the desire to do so would exist - which has implications for NATO and European defence as a whole...the consequences would ripple far more than people think.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:54 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm
If the question was a binary yes/no I think you’re right. The UK won’t allow another referendum in that basis, I think they’d spell out in advance exactly what the leave deal would be.

For the Yes supporters do you think this would be a fair way forward in that the negotiation happens before the vote and then we vote on what is known? Or a confirmatory referendum following a Yes vote?

It would take some of the unknowns out and not be so open to supposition, I am generally curious on that, as i think one of the big mistakes with the Brexit vote was not to have a binding confirmatory referendum following a Leave vote and as we have seen cakeism can be dispelled with this sort of approach.

As much as I would have liked for Brexit to be overturned in a second, confirmatory referendum, constitutionally it doesn't make sense to me. The mistake with the Brexit referendum was that its status was unclear when it happened, and it also became a de facto vote of no confidence in David Cameron.

While it would be hypocritical to suggest an independence referendum would not share some of those features (current polling is, after all, undoubtedly influenced by people's perception of and confidence in the UK and Scottish Governments), I think it was very helpful that the 2014 referendum was clearly a binding, one-step vote.

So no second, confirmatory referendum for me.

I known you don’t think that NI, sorry if you thought directed.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:11 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:54 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm
If the question was a binary yes/no I think you’re right. The UK won’t allow another referendum in that basis, I think they’d spell out in advance exactly what the leave deal would be.

For the Yes supporters do you think this would be a fair way forward in that the negotiation happens before the vote and then we vote on what is known? Or a confirmatory referendum following a Yes vote?

It would take some of the unknowns out and not be so open to supposition, I am generally curious on that, as i think one of the big mistakes with the Brexit vote was not to have a binding confirmatory referendum following a Leave vote and as we have seen cakeism can be dispelled with this sort of approach.

As much as I would have liked for Brexit to be overturned in a second, confirmatory referendum, constitutionally it doesn't make sense to me. The mistake with the Brexit referendum was that its status was unclear when it happened, and it also became a de facto vote of no confidence in David Cameron.

While it would be hypocritical to suggest an independence referendum would not share some of those features (current polling is, after all, undoubtedly influenced by people's perception of and confidence in the UK and Scottish Governments), I think it was very helpful that the 2014 referendum was clearly a binding, one-step vote.

So no second, confirmatory referendum for me.

Fair enough.

I would just prefer people knowing what they are voting on, granted not everything can be spelt out but a lot of maybes could be.

The Brexit vote was a total clusterfuck by Cameron, he should have tabled the need for the confirmatory one at the time of offering the first one but his arrogance meant he never thought he would actually lose the vote, probably buoyed by winning the Indy ref 2 years earlier which in reality ended up being far closer than most expected when the campaigns kicked off.

Brass neck.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:15 am




Brass neck.

She couldn't lie straight in bed

Interesting interview with Andrew Wilson the 'brain' of Scottish nationalism who will probably write the economic strategy for the next white paper if and when it happens. This is the guy Tichtfield is talking about when he alludes to someone 'having a solution' to deal with various issues.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/188 ... ew-wilson/

Highlights are it looks like trying to unofficially use the £ will be the currency plan...an interesting choice with a deficit normally around 10% and predicted to be over double or triple that in the next few years and could very easily lead to a lance of payments crisis (limited ability to borrow in a foreign currency and no access to central bank bailouts). It also means the finance industry (Scotland biggest onshore source of tax revenue) will have to move to where it has a lender of last resort.

Secondly a road-map to independence that doesn't end until 2026.

The finally point he does not in discuss but is evidently true is that currency choice rules out EU membership.

Whilst I accept there are many who would vote for full sovereignty regardless of the costs I do not think this is a majority of Scottish voters - as soon as the SNP try and present a credible plan to grapple with the difficulties I think the case for Independence gets weaker.

tc27 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:27 pm Interesting interview with Andrew Wilson the 'brain' of Scottish nationalism who will probably write the economic strategy for the next white paper if and when it happens. This is the guy Tichtfield is talking about when he alludes to someone 'having a solution' to deal with various issues.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/188 ... ew-wilson/

Highlights are it looks like trying to unofficially use the £ will be the currency plan...an interesting choice with a deficit normally around 10% and predicted to be over double or triple that in the next few years and could very easily lead to a lance of payments crisis (limited ability to borrow in a foreign currency and no access to central bank bailouts). It also means the finance industry (Scotland biggest onshore source of tax revenue) will have to move to where it has a lender of last resort.

Secondly a road-map to independence that doesn't end until 2026.

The finally point he does not in discuss but is evidently true is that currency choice rules out EU membership.

Whilst I accept there are many who would vote for full sovereignty regardless of the costs I do not think this is a majority of Scottish voters - as soon as the SNP try and present a credible plan to grapple with the difficulties I think the case for Independence gets weaker.

There needs to be a radical reckoning on the economic facts if this ludicrous path is still being touted; had we gone down this currency route the previous time, the fiscal expenditure required by COVID would have put us perilously close to sovereign default (quite the banana republic club). Let's look at the objective facts if you're an investor: you have a country with (pre crisis) c86% debt to GDP (in reality this would most likely be higher due to likelihood of a recession following the 2016 independence date), a pre-crisis deficit of 10% (likely to be higher due to parts of the financial sector decamping) and no central bank. The repayment plan is assessed entirely on tax revenues as debt rollover could be too prohibitive, spreads over Gilts are looking at c400bps (akin to large EMs who have their own central bank and a good record on debt).

Then, you have an epic (almost instantaneous) crisis in which the state has to quickly deliver c25% of GDP in fiscal expenditure, this can be funded by: higher taxes, lower government spending or issuing debt. There is no central bank to provide monetary chicanery, the pre-crisis budgetary and debt position are dire, Scottish debt spreads blow out at the very time huge tranches of debt are to be issued, the deficit stands at something close to 25%. At that level, every bp of yield has a large and far reaching impact on future budgets, squeezing money out of services to meet on-going debt interest. It would be an absolute maelstrom of the proverbial.
On top of this, you add the competence of the SNP administration- the people in charge of this mess are Sturgeon and Forbes- as well as the competence of the Scottish civil service which would be woefully unprepared to deal with these policy challenges; specifically as it would be four years old and would have no great experience in debt issuance and monetary policy.

Questions which should be agreed between UK government and nationalist administration and released ahead of any plebiscite:

SNP to agree to take on pro-rata share of national debt and a repayment plan and publish what proportion of the estimated budget that would consume
SNP to publish their preferred method for closing the deficit: tax rises (for whom), spending cuts (where) or debt issuance (how and in what currency)
SNP to publish their currency choice (not a range of options) and specify how they're going move toward it (shadow sterling, new currency, Euro etc.) and what the risks and benefits are for each
SNP to publish their plans for monetary authorities
Trade arrangements to be published in context of SNP's plan to get back into EU (subject to substantial deficit reduction and potentially joining Euro- need that covered off)
An independent estimate on the estimated cost of issuing Scottish debt to markets (they'll need to issue c10% of GDP on day 1 to meet the deficit)

People are free to vote as they wish but certain facts should be established ahead of time so people can make their own choice with some awareness of the cost and issues.

Just had a quick look at the Scottish COVID figures. I think they are saying that there was nearly 300 new hospital admissions over the weekend, that's quite a jump.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:15 pm Just had a quick look at the Scottish COVID figures. I think they are saying that there was nearly 300 new hospital admissions over the weekend, that's quite a jump.

Wasn't there a glitch in the reporting system, or was that just for new cases, not hospital admissions?

We are now a few weeks into the 2nd wave, so it's getting to the time where admissions and deaths will jump rather than (hopefully) new cases, as these tend to follow the new cases pattern with a 2-week lag time.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:15 pm Just had a quick look at the Scottish COVID figures. I think they are saying that there was nearly 300 new hospital admissions over the weekend, that's quite a jump.

Only saw todays which was a rise of 40 to 754 total but less in ICU.

Of more concern is this headline: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -5dhh05ndp

Can't see that helping convince people to download and use the app, there is a large amount of resistence already with people concerned about the misuse of their data.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:31 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:15 pm Just had a quick look at the Scottish COVID figures. I think they are saying that there was nearly 300 new hospital admissions over the weekend, that's quite a jump.

Wasn't there a glitch in the reporting system, or was that just for new cases, not hospital admissions?

We are now a few weeks into the 2nd wave, so it's getting to the time where admissions and deaths will jump rather than (hopefully) new cases, as these tend to follow the new cases pattern with a 2-week lag time.

I saw it was 478 on the 15th and 754 today. Just seemed like quite a big jump, not massively surprising like you say.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:15 pm Just had a quick look at the Scottish COVID figures. I think they are saying that there was nearly 300 new hospital admissions over the weekend, that's quite a jump.

Are these confirmed COVID or hospital admissions that are query COVID?

Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:46 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:15 pm Just had a quick look at the Scottish COVID figures. I think they are saying that there was nearly 300 new hospital admissions over the weekend, that's quite a jump.

Are these confirmed COVID or hospital admissions that are query COVID?

Dunno mate, just of the scotgov website. I think COVID confirmed

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:16 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:46 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:15 pm Just had a quick look at the Scottish COVID figures. I think they are saying that there was nearly 300 new hospital admissions over the weekend, that's quite a jump.

Are these confirmed COVID or hospital admissions that are query COVID?

Dunno mate, just of the scotgov website. I think COVID confirmed

Pretty sure they changed it to covid confirmed hospital admissions in August.

Lothian seems to have levelled off since the start of October, might even be some sign of a down turn starting the tail end of last week, but that might be the testing stooshie. Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire etc still increasing but rate seems to be slowing. I suspect Lothian might go to the same status as the rest of Scotland next week, other areas a week or two beyond.

This will be the ‘normal’ for the next wee while. Trot along merrily with mild restrictions, then when cases start to rise hit it early with two or three weeks of more severe restrictions. If it’s shown to work, it’ll be an easier sell to the public about being a short, sharp intervention to stop an explosion of cases. As immunity gets into the population, either through infection or immunisation, the space between the sever restrictions grows and we get back to real life.

I wonder how much the strategy of the no campaign in a hypothetical referendum will be impacted by the potential that the conservatives, and particularly the current troop of pro-brexit conservatives, will still be in power in WM. Specifically, given the obvious campaign focus area is on the disaster that has been the brexit negotiations and the possible very real fall-out and economic decline we may be experiencing by the time of any referendum, would they have the gall to hold up their own record of failure on Brexit as a reason to avoid independence? I think it is a very real possibility that we could find ourselves in a place where the no campaign find themselves extremely reluctant to paint the picture of chaos that may well follow a yes vote quite as vividly as we would expect as it would have very real consequences on their own party politics. Of course should the conservatives be out of power by then, it would be a massive open goal to aim for.

KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:41 pm I wonder how much the strategy of the no campaign in a hypothetical referendum will be impacted by the potential that the conservatives, and particularly the current troop of pro-brexit conservatives, will still be in power in WM. Specifically, given the obvious campaign focus area is on the disaster that has been the brexit negotiations and the possible very real fall-out and economic decline we may be experiencing by the time of any referendum, would they have the gall to hold up their own record of failure on Brexit as a reason to avoid independence? I think it is a very real possibility that we could find ourselves in a place where the no campaign find themselves extremely reluctant to paint the picture of chaos that may well follow a yes vote quite as vividly as we would expect as it would have very real consequences on their own party politics. Of course should the conservatives be out of power by then, it would be a massive open goal to aim for.

The short answer to this is that it would be silly to agree to a referendum in the immediate economic aftermath of Brexit (although the Covid recession to an extent going to mask this) or when the 'vote leave'/Johnson government is in charge.

It will be politically challenging to hold the line if the SNP win a absolute majority next spring but legally and in constitutional terms there is no obligation to enable a secession referendum. I also suspect that sooner or later the lunatic wing of the SNP will depose Sturgeon (or she'll go to an NGO somewhere) if she doesn't deliver a Catalan style vote (and to her credit I don't think she will) and I think a lot of support for the SNP and independence hangs on her perceived credibility.

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:26 pm

KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:41 pm I wonder how much the strategy of the no campaign in a hypothetical referendum will be impacted by the potential that the conservatives, and particularly the current troop of pro-brexit conservatives, will still be in power in WM. Specifically, given the obvious campaign focus area is on the disaster that has been the brexit negotiations and the possible very real fall-out and economic decline we may be experiencing by the time of any referendum, would they have the gall to hold up their own record of failure on Brexit as a reason to avoid independence? I think it is a very real possibility that we could find ourselves in a place where the no campaign find themselves extremely reluctant to paint the picture of chaos that may well follow a yes vote quite as vividly as we would expect as it would have very real consequences on their own party politics. Of course should the conservatives be out of power by then, it would be a massive open goal to aim for.

The short answer to this is that it would be silly to agree to a referendum in the immediate economic aftermath of Brexit (although the Covid recession to an extent going to mask this) or when the 'vote leave'/Johnson government is in charge.

It will be politically challenging to hold the line if the SNP win a absolute majority next spring but legally and in constitutional terms there is no obligation to enable a secession referendum. I also suspect that sooner or later the lunatic wing of the SNP will depose Sturgeon (or she'll go to an NGO somewhere) if she doesn't deliver a Catalan style vote (and to her credit I don't think she will) and I think a lot of support for the SNP and independence hangs on her perceived credibility.

Equally the shitshow that is Brexit should be a warning to those who think Scottish Independence will somehow be different or easy when there are even bigger hurdles to cross such as currency, central bank and a starting position of a large structural deficit. Hating Boris and the Brxit loons is perfectly understandable but not a reason to vote for Indy, imo of course.

Equally the shitshow that is Brexit should be a warning to those who think Scottish Independence will somehow be different or easy when there are even bigger hurdles to cross such as currency, central bank and a starting position of a large structural deficit. Hating Boris and the Brxit loons is perfectly understandable but not a reason to vote for Indy, imo of course.
Top

Yes imagine Brexit but if the UK relied on the EU for 10% of its public spending, was in the Euro and had to create many of the institutions and competencies of state from scratch.

The question of what will be the drivers for a vote for indy is an interesting one, but I think there is definitely more than one answer.

There are zealots, yes, those who stand roaring and greetin in front of the Bruce atop his cuddy at Bannockburn, and I'm not going to decry that. There are those who are anti-English everything and I will decry that.
There are those who have legitimate complaints about a democratic deficit and that is exacerbated by being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the electorate.

The camp I fall into is the one that says this has nothing to do with England or the English, the old "it's not you, it's me" (I couldn't be more fed up of hearing that England is to blame for everything wrong in Scotland). This is purely about Scotland being a country in its own right and as such having the legitimate desire, and right, to elect and hold to account the government of our choice, to make our own decisions. It's not really any more complicated than that.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:52 pm The question of what will be the drivers for a vote for indy is an interesting one, but I think there is definitely more than one answer.

There are zealots, yes, those who stand roaring and greetin in front of the Bruce atop his cuddy at Bannockburn, and I'm not going to decry that. There are those who are anti-English everything and I will decry that.
There are those who have legitimate complaints about a democratic deficit and that is exacerbated by being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the electorate.

The camp I fall into is the one that says this has nothing to do with England or the English, the old "it's not you, it's me" (I couldn't be more fed up of hearing that England is to blame for everything wrong in Scotland). This is purely about Scotland being a country in its own right and as such having the legitimate desire, and right, to elect and hold to account the government of our choice, to make our own decisions. It's not really any more complicated than that.

And that is fair enough, i am sure there are good number of people that voted for Brexit that felt along similar lines, not wanting to be part of the EU where they were a minority vote against the Franco German bloc, didnt want decisions forced on them from Brussels etc etc. All understandable, my caution is that as Brexit has shown, any divorce/change to the constitutional arrangement through separating with from the EU or the UK is going to be painful and given how intertwinned we are with the UK it is going to be magnified tenfold, if not more.

So in the end is it worth, for me it is clearly No, to both Brexit and Indy but others clearly feel differently and i could well end up being in the minority twice when we rerun the Indy question again.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:06 pm

And that is fair enough, i am sure there are good number of people that voted for Brexit that felt along similar lines, not wanting to be part of the EU where they were a minority vote against the Franco German bloc, didnt want decisions forced on them from Brussels etc etc.

I'd pick up this one thing on a point of order,



from Full Fact

Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:06 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:52 pm The question of what will be the drivers for a vote for indy is an interesting one, but I think there is definitely more than one answer.

There are zealots, yes, those who stand roaring and greetin in front of the Bruce atop his cuddy at Bannockburn, and I'm not going to decry that. There are those who are anti-English everything and I will decry that.
There are those who have legitimate complaints about a democratic deficit and that is exacerbated by being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the electorate.

The camp I fall into is the one that says this has nothing to do with England or the English, the old "it's not you, it's me" (I couldn't be more fed up of hearing that England is to blame for everything wrong in Scotland). This is purely about Scotland being a country in its own right and as such having the legitimate desire, and right, to elect and hold to account the government of our choice, to make our own decisions. It's not really any more complicated than that.

And that is fair enough, i am sure there are good number of people that voted for Brexit that felt along similar lines, not wanting to be part of the EU where they were a minority vote against the Franco German bloc, didnt want decisions forced on them from Brussels etc etc. All understandable, my caution is that as Brexit has shown, any divorce/change to the constitutional arrangement through separating with from the EU or the UK is going to be painful and given how intertwinned we are with the UK it is going to be magnified tenfold, if not more.

So in the end is it worth, for me it is clearly No, to both Brexit and Indy but others clearly feel differently and i could well end up being in the minority twice when we rerun the Indy question again.

Given your previous posts on here, this really doesn't reflect your arguments against Scottish Independence. There's a lot more frothing.

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:26 pm

KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:41 pm I wonder how much the strategy of the no campaign in a hypothetical referendum will be impacted by the potential that the conservatives, and particularly the current troop of pro-brexit conservatives, will still be in power in WM. Specifically, given the obvious campaign focus area is on the disaster that has been the brexit negotiations and the possible very real fall-out and economic decline we may be experiencing by the time of any referendum, would they have the gall to hold up their own record of failure on Brexit as a reason to avoid independence? I think it is a very real possibility that we could find ourselves in a place where the no campaign find themselves extremely reluctant to paint the picture of chaos that may well follow a yes vote quite as vividly as we would expect as it would have very real consequences on their own party politics. Of course should the conservatives be out of power by then, it would be a massive open goal to aim for.

The short answer to this is that it would be silly to agree to a referendum in the immediate economic aftermath of Brexit (although the Covid recession to an extent going to mask this) or when the 'vote leave'/Johnson government is in charge.

It will be politically challenging to hold the line if the SNP win a absolute majority next spring but legally and in constitutional terms there is no obligation to enable a secession referendum. I also suspect that sooner or later the lunatic wing of the SNP will depose Sturgeon (or she'll go to an NGO somewhere) if she doesn't deliver a Catalan style vote (and to her credit I don't think she will) and I think a lot of support for the SNP and independence hangs on her perceived credibility.

See, I'm not as convinced of that as you are. She has nothing to do with my thoughts on the matter. We used to hear it was all a personality cult around Salmond and that once he'd gone the number in favour of independence would fall as well. Didn't happen.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:25 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:06 pm

And that is fair enough, i am sure there are good number of people that voted for Brexit that felt along similar lines, not wanting to be part of the EU where they were a minority vote against the Franco German bloc, didnt want decisions forced on them from Brussels etc etc.

I'd pick up this one thing on a point of order,



from Full Fact

Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

It’s the perception that matters to these voters to how they feel. They undoubtedly didn’t feel the UK government represented them when they have enacted these laws, similar to how you have expressed yourself.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:12 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:26 pm

KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:41 pm I wonder how much the strategy of the no campaign in a hypothetical referendum will be impacted by the potential that the conservatives, and particularly the current troop of pro-brexit conservatives, will still be in power in WM. Specifically, given the obvious campaign focus area is on the disaster that has been the brexit negotiations and the possible very real fall-out and economic decline we may be experiencing by the time of any referendum, would they have the gall to hold up their own record of failure on Brexit as a reason to avoid independence? I think it is a very real possibility that we could find ourselves in a place where the no campaign find themselves extremely reluctant to paint the picture of chaos that may well follow a yes vote quite as vividly as we would expect as it would have very real consequences on their own party politics. Of course should the conservatives be out of power by then, it would be a massive open goal to aim for.

The short answer to this is that it would be silly to agree to a referendum in the immediate economic aftermath of Brexit (although the Covid recession to an extent going to mask this) or when the 'vote leave'/Johnson government is in charge.

It will be politically challenging to hold the line if the SNP win a absolute majority next spring but legally and in constitutional terms there is no obligation to enable a secession referendum. I also suspect that sooner or later the lunatic wing of the SNP will depose Sturgeon (or she'll go to an NGO somewhere) if she doesn't deliver a Catalan style vote (and to her credit I don't think she will) and I think a lot of support for the SNP and independence hangs on her perceived credibility.

See, I'm not as convinced of that as you are. She has nothing to do with my thoughts on the matter. We used to hear it was all a personality cult around Salmond and that once he'd gone the number in favour of independence would fall as well. Didn't happen.

I am thinking about the 10%ish of voters who are swinging the polls at the moment rather than people like us with entrenched views.

Nah people don't really care about what the SNP do (see the sexual allegations shite) as long as they shout about how bad Westminster/England/UK is. Folk are lapping it up.