A question for the non-Reform/non-Brexit folk living in England; if you had the opportunity to leave a UK dominated by Farage and his supporters
With my optimistic head on, I doubt Reform could get a majority to form a govt (I don't think they can win the over 300 seats you need), and only the Tories would form a coalition with them, and I think given the rejection of the Tories that would be a non starter as I don't think, outside the home counties, the Tories can get enough seats any more either, and if by some miracle they managed, the slim majority they somehow mustered would fall apart at the slightest provocation/headwind.
If I'm being selfish, I've managed through previous Tory govts that tried to do their level best to **** with entire groups and generations of people, and the resistance to a Reform Govt would be something to behold - I wouldn't miss that for the world. Plus, this country for all its faults is my home, and I'm ****ed if I'm going to leave just because of a political movement based on fear and hatred is somehow placed in power. I refuse to accept that the overwhelming majority of people support either who they are or what they represent.
Both Labour and Conservative governments have peddled fear and hatred.Reform are currently odds on at the bookies to form the next govt.They are rarely wrong about such things in my experience.
Perhaps you satisfied that this is a short term anomaly and things will improve if you just wait long enough?
Its going to be tricky since there are deep structural issues which need fixing. Farage and co are at least somewhat acknowledging them and promising a snake oil solution whilst hiding that what they want to do is double down on the damaging policies.
Its a major part of why I dislike the current Labour government. They have a chance to start fixing things but instead they are trying to please the unpleasable whilst alienating their own supporters.
but instead they are trying to please the unpleasable whilst alienating their own supporters.
That Reform voters need dragging away from the shit that Reform are peddling, is a fact. And it needs doing urgently for the sake of themselves if nothing else, there's no other political party or organisation going to do that other than the govt that's currently in power.
Reform got a higher share of the vote in Wales than in England
That was my point.
Trying to portray Scotland as being left leaning, is about as true historically as portraying Wales as being left leaning. Yet last week proved that can change very quickly.
Economically, do people ever vote for the correct party for the country at any given time in an economic cycle? Or do we (as a population) just tend to vote parties out every 8-12 years and go with change for changes sake, the problem with the last government wasn't so much their Tory'ness, as much as they'd just run out of competent ministers and ideas (although their conservatism was probably a big factor in those). In that context there's a far bigger correlation between the regions voting against Westminster than there is towards any one party.
Both Labour and Conservative governments have peddled fear and hatred.Reform are currently odds on at the bookies to form the nextgovt.Theyare rarely wrong about such things in my experience.
Bookies don't make decisions, they run a book. If they offer you 1000/1 odds on something, that just means they have far more money being placed against it than for it and offer whatever odds they need (and cut the odds of the event happening to dissuade more bets on it) to in order to balance their books. Bookies can be as wrong as they are right, as long as it's proportionate to the odds they sold the bets at. £1000 in bets on a 1/7 event, that's fine as long as they collected £7,000 against it at 7/1. Whatever happens they pay out £8k (and probably offered 1/6 and 8/1 to ensure a profit). It doesn't matter what the real statistical likelihood is.
I'd postulate with some prejudice and stereotyping that reform voters might spend more time in the bookies than the average Green. So bookies have a far bigger exposure to that.
but there hasn't been a majority for independence for years
And yet there's a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament right now
Both Labour and Conservative governments have peddled fear and hatred
I would have thought that comment applied more to Reform, but others will have different views.
That was my point.
Trying to portray Scotland as being left leaning, is about as true historically as portraying Wales as being left leaning. Yet last week proved that can change very quickly.
I don't really want to opine on Wales as I'm pretty ignorant as to the political history and beyond the current numbers and the previous Labour domination I don't know a great deal.
On Scotland, historically, Scotland was fairly "small c" conservative and voted largely in line with the UK as a whole. This changed fairly dramatically during the 80's as a rection to Thatcher and the de-industrialisation of large parts of Scotland. Its never really changed back, since the 1980's Scotland has consistently voted for more often for left leaning parties than England, prior to devolution that was typically Labour.
In a general election Scotland hasn't returned a majority of Conservative MPs since 1955, the UK as a whole obviously has several times. So its reasonable that, both historically and currently, Scotland is more left leaning than the UK as whole, certainly at least in how people vote.
Reform + Conservative got 29% of the vote share in Scotland
Reform + Conservative got 46% of the vote share in England
Both Labour and Conservative governments have peddled fear and hatred
I don't disagree with that statement, but why is it showing up as a quote by me?
A question for the non-Reform/non-Brexit folk living in England; if you had the opportunity to leave a UK dominated by Farage and his supporters, would you not be tempted?
I'm not so sure as I'm fond of "if you don't like it then you can always leave."(*) I'd much rather we dropped Rygel and his ilk in the North Sea instead, given the options.
(* - well we could, prior to brexit...)
Where it gets messy though is what that actually means. Is it just immigration or people seeing their local area change rapidly around them?
It means "we don't like foreigners."
You suppose there's nuance here? I admire your optimism but I fear it's naive.
In a general election Scotland hasn't returned a majority of Conservative MPs since 1955, the UK as a whole obviously has several times. So its reasonable that, both historically and currently, Scotland is more left leaning than the UK as whole, certainly at least in how people vote.
And to add to that, anecdotally at least, there is a far more welcoming approach to left leaning policies. I moved back to Scotland during Covid after spending virtually all my adult life in England and the last 20 years in the South. Scotland's taxation with higher rates of income tax for those down to pretty modest salaries balanced against lower rates than the rest of the UK for those on low wages, free prescriptions, eye and dental checks and university tuition fees isn't just tolerated but welcomed in a way I just don't think I would have seen in my previously tory voting Hampshire home. I live in the Highlands which admittedly is not necessarily representative of the whole of Scotland, but I see every day small act of community spirit that demonstrate a society that cares about the old and disadvantaged within the community.
It means "we don't like foreigners."
Nope thats just lazy thinking. Again whilst clearly there were those who took that approach in some cases it was "I now feel foreign in my home town". I dont think it is unreasonable for someone to respond badly to that especially if it happened in a decade or so.
The same way people living in certain hotspots get pissed off about their home town being brought up by second home owners/AirBnBers.
Plaid is not a pro-independence party. They have pledged to commission a report into it.
Yes, it's true that there are independent nations the size of Wales, but I don't think there are any that have been so completely integrated into another much larger country for so long. Those countries followed a different path to the modern age, they would have had local centres of power that were able to become nation states. When Wales was annexed there was no modern infrastructure, so when that developed it was all about extracting goods and wealth to London rather than to any Welsh location. That's why it never had a powerful modern capital, unlike Scotland. Cardiff is a port town, it only started gaining 'Welsh National' things fairly recently. Compare it with the other ports of the Empire like Glasgow or Liverpool in say 1900. You can't really compare Wales with Slovenia or Estonia economically. You should compare it with say, Brittany, or Cumbria. Even Spain has much stronger regional economies, based on the old kingdoms. Can you compare Barcelona with Cardiff?
You can look at Wales's GDP, but you need to understand how much of that is endogenous. Take Admiral insurance. They made nearly £900m profit in 2024 but how much of that was selling insurance to English customers? It's not going to be that much after independence, they would set up an English company for their English customers or, more likely, they would lose most of them at renewal time. Funnily enough, this would not have been an issue had the UK been in the EU, assuming they let Wales remain in it.
Even Plaid Cymru know how difficult it would be. There are lots of romantics around who would wish it, to be fair I think it would be pretty cool in some ways - but I don't want to sacrifice my kids' prosperity for a romantic ideal. The Plaid vote was because most people wanted a progressive centre-left party, but they didn't think Labour would be good. It only takes a small shift for an idea to gain momentum (haha) and for people to believe that PC were a real alternative.
And to add to that, anecdotally at least, there is a far more welcoming approach to left leaning policies. I moved back to Scotland during Covid after spending virtually all my adult life in England and the last 20 years in the South.
The older and more cynical I get, the more I'm concluding that people are either "with us" or "against us" types and that who people vote for is just a product of their own tendencies towards inertia Vs protest. It's why we have some constituencies which swing and others are strongholds'. Places where people are doing well, so to generalize London and the SE have no need to protest so always vote the same (Labour or Tory respectively). The biggest swings always seem to come from places that need to protest. Whether that's a binary choice in a 2 party system, or newer or populist parties could just be a factor of what's available at the time.
As Richmtb said the Scottish vote went to Labour as a protest against Thatcher. Was that a lurch to the left, or just a protest against Westminster? It makes far more sense viewed as a protest vote, otherwise why not stick with Labour and campaign for those policies UK wide?
I find it hard to rationalize nationalism and socialism, the egalitarianism of free prescriptions and university isn't very egalitarian when you start saying one person can have it and another can't based on how far Hadrian got a few millennia ago.
Thanks @molgrips for that perspective. I like to think I'm modest/self-aware enough not to comment on Welsh politics.
I don't think that p.o.v holds water for Sinn Fein.
My reference points in NI are somewhat limited, but a friend who has been red white and blue his whole life voted Sinn Fein at the last election because he felt the alternative had just lost the plot. Now his views on Irish Unity have softened somewhat in the 30+ yrs I've known him, but he'd still much rather the status quo. In his constituency its a straight two horse race so if he didn't want the "mental brigade" (his words) he needed to vote for Sinn Fein.
Why single out those particular parties?
You could equally well say there's a massive assumption that a vote for Tories, Labour , Libdems, is an endorsement of their views on the union.
Because the premise of the thread is that people who voted for those parties were seeking separation. It is absolutely true that many people who voted for "unionist" parties are open to or even supportive of the possibility of independence.
I find it hard to rationalize nationalism and socialism, the egalitarianism of free prescriptions and university isn't very egalitarian when you start saying one person can have it and another can't based on how far Hadrian got a few millennia ago.
One person can have it because they consistently vote for a Government that makes that a priority.
Some form of fees was payable in Scotland between 1998 and 2008, but the SNP Government pledged to scrap them (and did) after the 2007 Scottish elections. Because it proved to be a popular policy all the main political parties in Scotland now support free tuition.
Not having it in the rest of the UK is a political choice.
Not having it in the rest of the UK is a political choice.
A point not lost on English voters, the vote for tuition fees in England passed because Scottish MP's voted for it.
And asserting that "England voted for Brexit and then imposed it on Scotland and NI" is somewhat dismissive (and frankly, offensive) when three quarters of England didn't.
But at no point after the initial referendum, did anyone* in England say - hang on this is an idea that doesn't have universal support, has distinct geographic differences and is likely to destabilise bits of the Union; we should look at how to soften that or even consider again...
*Actually some people did, but a tiny fraction of the 3/4 who never asked for it in the first place felt they should challenge the Brexit means Brexit nonsense and then impose a Brexit on the whole country which never had significant support.
I find it hard to rationalize nationalism and socialism, the egalitarianism of free prescriptions and university isn't very egalitarian when you start saying one person can have it and another can't based on how far Hadrian got a few millennia ago.
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Any Scottish resident will qualify for free prescriptions, all you need to do is live in the country. (In fact I think visitors will get free prescriptions too - because the system isn't set up to differentiate; so all you need to do is prescribed and dispensed your drugs in Scotland). Its a decision by "England" not to do the same.
Similarly Scottish students qualify based on a residence rule, which is 3yrs; thats the same duration which has always been used for determining which LEA etc was responsible for fees/grants etc when they were an option. Clearly if Scotland said education is free for everyone there would be a capacity issue when English Uni's are charging 9k pa.
There's free movement of people in the UK. And its a decision of every person in England not to move to Scotland.
the blair government introduced that policy pre-devolution. That policy was carried by ~240 votes so even if every Scottish MP voted for it, they didn't swing it. The increase of the fees in 2004 was won by Scottish whipped back benchers (but slightly unfair to describe as though all Scottish MPs voted for it - they didn't) - but that situation arose through constitutional apathy from those in England: the easy answer to the West Lothian Question is English National or Regional Assemblies and a proper federal structure.A point not lost on English voters, the vote for tuition fees in England passed because Scottish MP's voted for it.
The SNP has never voted for University fees in England. Traditionally they never took part in England only debates .
Your making a fair point but once again you have chosen not to count all the parties that support independence, I do think you're agenda is showing
