Calling it an "invisible line" is a bit odd.
Which bit do you take umbrage with, that there is a line (ergo separate nations shouldn't exist within the UK)? Or that its invisible?
its close enough to 50 50 and has been fir years. sometimes over and sometimes under and a decent campaign wouldput many points on that as would reform in Westminster
Says the man hoping for independence, I suspect a unionist would say exactly the opposite. The second graph shows the position more clearly, "all Scots" see it as a side issue at best, to more pressing concerns
says a man who understands scottish politics
Calling it an "invisible line" is a bit odd.
Which bit do you take umbrage with, that there is a line (ergo separate nations shouldn't exist within the UK)? Or that its invisible?
I understand from previous posts that molgrips does not believe in any national borders.
but it all depends who’s poll data you use - this poll of polls shows that the Yes has been a majority on a number of occasions in the last 24 months.So, from 2023 there hasn't been a majority. It may have been close, (it always has after all) but it has been no for "years now" Correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRbaR-polling-on-scottish-independence-headline-figure_(8).png
I’m not saying it’s right, to me it’s still too close to call which makes it a problem whichever way the vote goes.
that is a misleading description of the statistics, it’s in the top 3 for about 1/3rd of people who voted for pro Indy parties on the regional vote, and you’ve no idea whether it’s no 4 for the rest, or whether some of them think it is part of the way to get 1, 2, 3…The second graph shows that it's not even top 5 for "all Scots". which says to me that any referendum is going to be seen by most voters as a sideshow to what actually concerns them
if it’s really a waste of time side show of no interest to the electorate then Westminster would concede it as it would be a humiliating defeat for the SNP and feed the “wasting money on unnecessary referenda” rhetoric. You may be right and it’s a calculated risk for the SNP to go and ask for a referendum 12 yrs after the last, as loose this one and it really might be a very long time before you get the opportunity again.
the only difference is that hatred of the English is legitimised and encouraged in Scotland and Wales.
I hear the Life Shop™ © ® has a sale on at the moment, I suggest you pop by and get yourself one. What a load of drivel! *rolls eyes *
You may be right and it’s a calculated risk for the SNP to go and ask for a referendum 12 yrs after the last
What would be the point of the SNP if they don't?
You may be right and it’s a calculated risk for the SNP to go and ask for a referendum 12 yrs after the last
What would be the point of the SNP if they don't?
well according to your logic most people don’t care about Indy but very large numbers keep voting them into power - so on your analysis they seem to have a perfectly valid “point” as a Scottish party governing in the interest of Scotland (it genuinely amazes me that none of the traditional WM parties have worked out that in a world of devolution appearing to be be just the local flavour of the WM party is not a strong message).
clearly SNP want Indy - it’s you that suggested they don’t really - but the timing of that is actually a really critical balancing act. You need to ask for the s30 at the time when WM might be willing to grant it, at a time when you think you might win it, and at a time when everything going on locally and globally doesn’t feed a “unnecessary distraction” argument, and preferably at a time where if you do win it that global circumstance make proving it was actually a good thing to do easier. That’s a balancing act that the more rabid Indy supporters don’t get.
of course everytime he asks for s30 and gets refused it’s one more notch on the “WM telling us what to do” tally which feeds the rhetoric - so asks expecting to be refused is a legit approach, Keir could call his bluff by agreeing, because all the other bits of timing are probably non-optimal right now.
clearly SNP want Indy - it’s you that suggested they don’t really -
It's been well over a decade since the last one, and clearly the SNP have had their own issues in the mean-time that has meant a referendum's been a non-starter.
Not least because - as I've pointed out, there's been a sustained majority that have said [since the last one] they would vote no despite, technically, at some points in the last couple of years where it was 50/50 or a teeny bit positive for "yes".
Now, when you ask SNP voters that same question, it's resoundingly (something like 86%) want another referendum, and SNP have just been handed a victory off the back of rejection of both Labour and Reform, whether they judge that to be sufficient for another tilt at it remains to be seen. With what's going on at Westminster right now, I can't imagine it'd be entertained by either Starmer or whomever replaces him.
The SNP aren't stupid. Despite the wails of all the Unionist zoomers, they clearly have a strong grasp on running a successful political operation. But, the indy ref thing is definitely a bit of a tightrope. For the reasons state above are complete true and also they can probably claim, quite legitimately, that circumstances have changed since the last indy ref, but its a card they can only play once.
If I was being 100% cynical I'd say it actually benefits the SNP to just keep finding reasons to kick the indy can down the road, as due to being the main Indy party they are guaranteed probably enough vote share to remain the biggest party in Scotland for some time.
Do pro independence Scots all want the same thing? I’ve spoken to some who want to leave the union and then join the EU while others want to be fully independent. Anecdotally the full independence camp does seems a fair bit smaller.
Which bit do you take umbrage with, that there is a line (ergo separate nations shouldn't exist within the UK)? Or that its invisible?
I am trying to point out the arbitrary nature of it. We are one country, we have been for longer than most European countries have existed. Dividing it along a historical boundary seems intrinsically wrong, to me. I can see why you want to - you don't like your current government - but lots of people don't. Invoking a historical line to single out some of your allies seems intrinsically wrong.
clearly SNP want Indy - it’s you that suggested they don’t really -
It's been well over a decade since the last one, and clearly the SNP have had their own issues in the mean-time that has meant a referendum's been a non-starter.
Not least because - as I've pointed out, there's been a sustained majority that have said [since the last one] they would vote no despite, technically, at some points in the last couple of years where it was 50/50 or a teeny bit positive for "yes".
You imply the SNP government have not asked for a referendum at any point in the intervening years. They have, and been rejected (and that feeds the "Westminster telling us what to do" rhetoric).
Now, when you ask SNP voters that same question, it's resoundingly (something like 86%) want another referendum, and SNP have just been handed a victory off the back of rejection of both Labour and Reform, whether they judge that to be sufficient for another tilt at it remains to be seen. With what's going on at Westminster right now, I can't imagine it'd be entertained by either Starmer or whomever replaces him.
Possibly - so Swinney knows it will be another no, or not right now, which feed the "see they won't even let us decide our future" OR if you were Starmer trying to show change, perhaps you would find some way to show there is change, and you are listening not dictating and at the very least agree a process by which a future government would have to allow a referendum? If I was Burnham looking for a way in to replace Starmer I might be willing to make commitments to SNP and Greens in return for leaving the door open in the Dundee by election! I doubt its a safe enough seat - but its a bit bizzare for any party to block him when they all say Keir has to go.
What defines "one country". Different legal systems. Different education systems. Different taxation. Unique cultural distinctions. Language variation. Sense of national identity.Which bit do you take umbrage with, that there is a line (ergo separate nations shouldn't exist within the UK)? Or that its invisible?
I am trying to point out the arbitrary nature of it. We are one country, we have been for longer than most European countries have existed. Dividing it along a historical boundary seems intrinsically wrong, to me. I can see why you want to - you don't like your current government - but lots of people don't. Invoking a historical line to single out some of your allies seems intrinsically wrong.
Do pro independence Scots all want the same thing?Of course not, but they "all" agree that those decisions should be matters for the scottish people and their elected institutions. Some would have been happier with simply restructuring the UK, into something more Federal but there seems to be no real appetite for that from "England". Some would see it as an opportunity to rid themselves of the monarchy, whilst others are devout monarchists - that position may have moved slightly since ER-II is no longer there.
Helpfully the previous referendum came with a very lengthy tomb which defined a plan (although of course the opposition said it was nonsense), that was much more helpful that Brexit where everyone had their own fluid vision depending who they were arguing with. Unhelpfully there are issues that can't be entirely unilaterally decided. Currency, EU, UK Borders, proportion of UK debt, NATO including the temporary or prolonged presence of Faslane are all issues an independent Scotland has some degree of veto on but can't simply decide on their own - and trying to negotiate those things before you decide is a problem if the other-side is trying to blackmail you to stay.I’ve spoken to some who want to leave the union and then join the EU while others want to be fully independent. Anecdotally the full independence camp does seems a fair bit smaller.
UK ..the new Italy?
What defines "one country".
Well there's the question. One government, for a start - we have that for 300 years, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Government are regional/provincial/state governments. AFAIK we have less powers than German state governments do, and Germany is still considered one country.
The division between England and Scotland seems to me to be comparable to the division between highland and lowland Scotland, or between NE England and London. Honestly, to me the most logical solution is a federal UK with England divided into late medieval Anglo Saxon kingdoms.
EDIT: I'd go for London and all the Home Counties, East Anglia and Kent; Northumbria; Mercia probably not going as far east as Lincolnshire, then Wessex from say Wiltshire westwards. Borders to be decided by having a ballot where voters draw the lines on a map and they get averaged out 🙂
Go on?
Strikes me that both Highland Scotland and Lowland Scotland have the same legal system. Scotland and England do not.
I'm from Ayr parts of my family are from Ayr some from Kirkcudbrightshire/Wigtownshire . Maternal grandparents from Islay but moved to Ayr via Canada.Some of my dads family are "Galloway Irish". My point being that there's a long long history of migration within the various parts of Scotland as well as from outwith Scotland so there's a great deal of similar culture or shared culture in Highland and in Lowland Scotland
There is clearly massive cultural overlap across all parts of the UK, but Scotland is obviously not just a region equivalent to Northumbria or Yorkshire.
Scotland entered the 1707 union as a pre-existing kingdom, and after union it retained separate legal, educational, and religious frameworks. Even before devolution, Scotland had a degree of administrative autonomy through the Scottish Office, and it now has its own parliament with substantial devolved powers.
While there are definitely distinct cultural differences between regions in England, there have generally not been comparable legal and political distinctions between English regions for a very long time.
massive revival of interest in the snp by the mid 1970’s, to coincide with the boom in North Sea revenues.
Was this renewed support of the snp in Grampian, or in the areas that were losing capital and revenue to London?
no-one attributed the relative demise of the regions to a shift in banking policy, because no one advertised it.
had it come down to a referendum, who knows?
Anyway, rather than tempting some multinational company to slam its manufacturing plant in some far flung corner of wales as a panacea against unemployment (like a cathedral in the desert), just rejuvenate hemp production.
this is a sustainable way to redress rural depopulation, detoxify land, suck vast quantities of c02 from the air, stabilise the soil, provide a bulwark against flooding, and provide a nutritious habitat for wildlife.
pre-1937, nearly everything was made of cannabis hemp.
the change coincided with Middle Eastern oil.
America is propped up financially by only allowing Middle Eastern oil to be traded in dollars.
the analogy they use is of the artist Salvador Dali, dining at expensive restaurants.
the restaurants would never dare cash his cheque, as it bore his near priceless signature.
so, Dali and his friends could effectively dine out at fancy restaurants, ad infinitum.
thus, America is insulated from all manner of financial shocks, and gets to repay china.
Pick up any manifesto, and it becomes all to clear from their rhetoric that the political parties acknowledge the existence of vast swathes of the population who are not not quite running at full capacity.
even in the working population, there’s no shortage of clients who could be lifted out of relative poverty, merely by lowering the threshold for learning disability related PIP.
Most of these people could as easily be repatriated to the regions and grouse moors to cultivate hemp.
even if the land is too steep to make it economical to harvest, just by cultivating it in place of carcinogenic bracken, they’re more economically active than they were in the inner cities.
so the uk will continue to fragment, viable companies like Vox amplifiers will continue to have their assets stripped, whilst we’re on high interest rates.
de-facto, we’ve been in a 2 speed uk since 1969.
we’ve been in a two speed uk since 1969, we’ve just never been told why.
Insulting as it is, the term ‘Little Englander’ is celebrated in popular culture.
think ‘Alan Partridge’ and ‘Alf Garnett’.
😂😂😂
so are all EU countries just one country?Well there's the question. One government, for a start -
does that mean that nothing could change? It seems a peculiar circular logic - Yugoslavia had one government do you dispute the legitimacy of the independent states because for a while they put up with each other?.we have that for 300 years,
not sure if you chose your language to be provocative but it has the opposite effect from your stated desire - rather than cementing the nations into a union even quite non-plussed Scot’s are likely to be driven towards telling you (and your countrymen) to **** off!the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Government are regional/provincial/state governments.
I haven’t done an analysis but it’s likely that some things are more local in Germany and some are less - but is Germany the perfect model company?
AFAIK we have less powers than German state governments do, and Germany is still considered one country.
it seems to me you are wrong. I’ve lived in both - have you? The differences are even clearer post devolution - not all of them are necessarily better.The division between England and Scotland seems to me to be comparable to the division between highland and lowland Scotland, or between NE England and London.
well the Lib Dem’s have essentially had that policy for decades and never got any real traction so you may be a lone voice, I’d suggest it’s a lack of real regional identity that prevents those areas having a degree of devolution/autonomy. Should that preclude those areas of the UK which do have a distinct identity from experiencing devolution?Honestly, to me the most logical solution is a federal UK with England divided into late medieval Anglo Saxon kingdoms.
Whilst I'll admit to skipping the middle pages, I've not picked up much discussion re. Northern Ireland.
As I see it (from the mid-shires of England, admittedly), the 1st of the 'home nations' that will separate could quite possibly NI, as there's a written requirement in the Good Friday agreement to hold a referendum, if (when) the stage comes that, if such a referendum was to be held, the outcome could realistically be 're-unite all of Ireland'. The demographics is inextricably heading in thst direction. I'm sure Jerry A understood that well when agreeing to the GF agreement. It's when, not if that day comes. I reckon it'll be in my lifetime, and I'm closer to 70 than 40.
I think you are probable right on NI
If I was a young Scot, I don't see why you'd want any sort of splitting up. You currently get a phenomenally good deal on the student fees and extra funding from Barnett formula. I'd be thrilled with the current setup.
We get less money from the Barnet formula than is raised in Scotland, We cannot have the government policies the country needs, we cannot raise money for infrastructure that is desperately needed, we cannot change the useless and overly complex taxation and benefits setup, we cannot have the immigration policies we need, we cannot rejoin the EU, we cannot function as an independent country, we create cheap electricity and pay high prices for it so others profit, we are being held back from developing as we want by being attached to inward looking and conservative England
Also if E&W do the sensible thing and get water back you can bet a pound to a penny that it'll cost a fortune of UK tax payer money. Not so HS2 won't make the trains any faster north of Crewe. That new Thames tunnel won't do a single thing for Cardiff travel times. A fourth runway etc etc etc
Is'nt it the case that because of the Barnett formula the amount of funds available to the Scottish government is ultimately decided by who ever is in government in Westminster. Wales would be in a similar position as would Northern Ireland
Yes, all the nations in the union get much more in avg. funding per head than England. A particularly bad formula for those in the midlands or the south (London excluded). But a great formula for others.
Data from 2024
Spending per head does not measure the cost of providing an effective service in different areas which can vary substantially in different parts of the UK. My point was that the devolved governments can draw up plans for the future but if spending in England is reduced then the budget for the devolved governments is reduced meaning they have to cut spending or raise income from the other limited resources they have. It is a means of keeping control at Westminster but devolving responsibility to the devolved governments.
I'm really not sure what great 'injustice' Scots are getting from the current situation that warrants such unhappiness. Based on some of the data I just showed, and previous areas I mentioned. Seems like a great deal you guys get?
🙄
.
.
.
.
.
😑
I'm really not sure what great 'injustice' Scots are getting from the current situation that warrants such unhappiness. Based on some of the data I just showed, and previous areas I mentioned. Seems like a great deal you guys get?
Did you read my post? We get stuck with right wing governments we have never voted for, we cannot make the government policies that suit our country. We pay high prices for the cheap electricity we generate with the profits leaving Scotland, we were dragged out of the EU against our will and are not allowed to rejoin. Scotland has been systematically asset stripped for decades by governments we did not vote for
Its a shit deal being an ignored port of a union that does not work for us
Many of us would like to decide our own destiny. You know like most countries do
Shame we don't have any examples of a country leaving a close union with its largest export partner we could draw on to see how it works out.
Oh, hang on...10 years ago on a different forum:
We get stuck with EU bureaucrats we have never voted for, we cannot make the government policies that suit our country. We pay high contributions for the EU budget with the surplus leaving the UK, we were dragged deeper into the EU against our will and are told we would never survive if we left. The UK's fisheries have been systematically stripped for decades by European fisherman due to rules we did not vote for
Its a shit deal being an ignored port of a union that does not work for us
Many of us would like to decide our own destiny. You know like most countries do
Apart from in the EU but independent we would have a say in the rules, unelected bureaucrats do not invent laws in the EU, we can make policies to suit our country in the EU and brexit and Scots independence are very different things
If Scotland is struggling in the UK and underperformig then whats the definition of stupidity again? continuing to do the same thing but expecting a differnt outcome?
But hey ho. too small too poor too feart it is then
I'm only pulling your leg really TJ, although I was half-heartedly making a point about how easy it is to make a case for something with a few emotive statements and ignoring the wider picture.
Just out of interest, does every person who makes the indy/Brexit comparison think they are the first person ever to make this connection?
It just seems like someone mentions it every third post and this has been the case on every thread where indy has been discussed. And every time it's presented as some amazing revelation that no one but them has ever thought of.
Just to summarize the thousands of responses to these posts of over the years:
1. The roots of indy and Brexit may share some similarities, ie, people are unhappy and looking for a solution.
That basically covers the similarities. The differences are too numerous to list, but what it boils down to is that Scotland wants to be a small European country.
Britannia wants to once again rule the waves and the EU was just holding us back. Once out of the EU the former colonies will soon recognise our greatness and we will again be seen as the global leaders we know we are, at the very least the equal of the US and China (but we all know they look up to us).
So, well done for being the 9876th person to make the comparison but you've not really added anything new to the discussion.
Comparing Scotland's desire for self determination in a United Kingdom context with England's desire for self determination in a European Union context might be a tad flawed. One of the strongest arguements pitched at wavering Scots in 2014 was that a vote to leave the UK was by default a vote to leave the EU. It was made clear that the UK was the EU member and Scotland as a lone entity wasn't. This was despite all Scotland's goods, exports, safety regs etc being EU compliant. Sticking points around currency, central bank etc have been overcome by other nations and would have been by Scotland.
The percentage of Scots who voted No in the 2014 Indyref primarily for reasons of continued EU membership cannot be known. What is irrefutable is that Scotland was by far the most EU supporting Home Nation in the 2016 Brexit vote. Rather than having the isolationist mindset of Brexiteers, most Scots, be they Nationalists or Unionists were and still are very pro-european in their outlook. To suggest otherwise is a rather fanciful false equivalence.
Had the Brexit referendum predated Indyref, it's highly likely that Scotland would now be an independant country within the EU. But here we are, Scotland's contribution deliberately hidden in UK figures and the 'generous' Barnett Formula and GERS figures giving less back than goes in, all the while expecting Scots to be grateful.
If Scotland is struggling in the UK and underperformig then whats the definition of stupidity again?
Thinking Scotland will be better off as a tiny part off a much bigger entity where it'll have next to zero ability to influence anything. You can just see it can't you, Germany, France, Spain going hang on a minute this isn't going to be good for Scotland we'd better change tack.
Thinking Scotland will be better off as a tiny part off a much bigger entity where it'll have next to zero ability to influence anything.
Rather than being part of a smaller entity with zero influence? When that smaller entity the UK actively works against Scotlands interests?
There's no valid comparison between the UK and the EU.
For example I asked google AI
What is the proceedure for a member country to leave the EU?
The answer
The procedure for a member state to leave the European Union is governed exclusively by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It involves a formal notification followed by a negotiation period of up to two years. [1, 2, 3]
I also asked google AI
What is the proceedure for a part of the United Kingdom to leave the United Kingdom?
The answer
There is no automatic legal mechanism for a part of the UK to secede. Because the UK operates under a system of parliamentary sovereignty, any constituent country leaving requires political negotiation, an Act of Parliament at Westminster, and a referendum. [1, 2]
