Scottish politics thread

The SNP candidate was doing the doors in Aviemore at the weekend. I’ve seen a few signs up and had a couple of mailshots from the Tory. The election hasn’t been a topic of conversation.

I’ve had hundreds of leaflets but I have been delivering them😁

Holyrood is where actual work gets done for Scotland, the SNP MPs are doing a job making sure Scotland gets its share

The reserved matters are all massively important to Scottish residents – (most) tax, monetary policy, foreign policy, defence… – and there is actual work to be done on all of them.

…but what do SNP MPs have to do to make sure Scotland gets its “share”…?

I’ve got a leaflet from my constituency’s Labour candidate. That’s the only election leaflet I’ve received so far. I’m in Edinburgh South West, currently the SNP had a strong majority here in 2019 with the Tories in second place but the polling sites seem to be saying that Labour are now close behind the SNP.

I’ve had loads from labour, one from the SNP.

1) interesting that the SNP has put independence as line 1 in the manifesto. If they get a majority of MPs in Scotland, I suppose they have a mandate for a referendum in the next term. And if they don’t get a mandate does that mean they’ll stop spending public money on exploring options for independence…?

2) Private Eye is reporting that the Electoral Commission has recorded the SNP as receiving zero donations in Jan-Mar 2024. That surely can’t be right…? Is it below the threshold for reporting? They can’t literally have had no-one give them any money at all, that doesn’t make sense.

It does, if you consider how much they’ve betrayed their donors.

Tsk. Tsk. @pca. I’d hate to accuse you of trolling but we’ve been over this so many times, I fear your question is very tongue-in-cheek. 😀

First of all, despite the SNPs sudden conversion to a position they didn’t have a mere few weeks ago, not every independence supporter will vote for the SNP. Indeed, that’s probably more true at this election than any previous one in my lifetime. The cynic in me says that the SNP have only come out with this because they’re expecting NOT to have a majority this time.

Then there’s the question that no unionist politician is willing to answer; how exactly does the population of Scotland express it’s right to a referendum such that Westminster will grant it? Remember that Margaret Thatcher considered a majority of independence MPs to signify a right to independence itself, not merely a referendum on the matter.

As for the donations question, see the first part of my response.

how exactly does the population of Scotland express it’s right to a referendum

Well the SNP have consistently said that Westminster should listen to the voices of the Scottish people. In the vast majority of recent elections and polls the majority of Scottish voters have said they don’t want a second referendum. Therefore Westminster is doing exactly what the SNP have asked them to do.  Surely the SNP should be happy about that?

” interesting that the SNP has put independence as line 1 in the manifesto ”
It’s exactly what Swinney said he would do when he became leader.

In the vast majority of recent elections

…folk have elected a party which has a referendum in its manifesto. Can’t have parties going back on their manifesto commitments 😀

interesting that the SNP has put independence as line 1 in the manifesto

Not sure something that is 100% expected is “interesting”.

Pretty sure if it wasn’t at #1 you’d be posting up telling us how they’re not now interested etc in independence…

 Can’t have parties going back on their manifesto commitments 😀

Totally agree. The majority of Scottish voters voted for parties with manifesto policies of not having another referendum, and that’s what we have now.  So the Scottish electorate has got what it wants. Perfect!!

Except those parties weren’t elected into power.

Yes but they were. An independence referendum is a reserved matter ie for Westminster to decide. And the party elected to govern had a manifesto policy of no second referendum.

To rephrase the question, why should we have another referendum when the majority of people don’t want one?

To rephrase the question, why should we have another referendum when the majority of people don’t want one?

Did I miss the vote?

Did I miss the vote?

Two answers.

1. The vast majority of recent elections.
2. Where was the vote that said we do want a second referendum?

I do think there is a clear democratic deficit at play here.

There should be a clear framework and process for the people of Scotland to be offered another referendum, because regardless of the pinhead dancing by union supporters (who have a legit PoV), the settlement on which the last referendum result rested has fundamentally changed. There should be a clear threshold or mechanism to trigger another referendum because Brexit (rightly or wrongly) has well and truly moved the goal posts.

The other part of the democratic deficit is that England doesn’t have a parliament. And Westminster should not be the defacto English parliament.

The only way the unionists can legitimately snuff out the indy movement is with a proper federal approach to reform the UK. I doubt that will happen, so I think indy is an inevitability, but it will take time (sadly). Probably 25+ years from now.

not every independence supporter will vote for the SNP…how exactly does the population of Scotland express it’s right to a referendum such that Westminster will grant it?

The first point is a generic one about manifestos and mandates. Very few people are totally aligned with any party. If I only care about banning fossil fuel advertising, then I should vote for the Scottish Greens. If they’re elected, then they have a mandate to implement that policy – but also every other policy in their manifesto.

If on the other hand I think the ad ban would be a good idea but on balance I prefer the manifesto of another party, then I should vote for the other party. But that other party won’t have a mandate to ban fossil fuel advertising once it gets in because it wasn’t in their manifesto.

The reverse is also true for parties: if they really want a mandate to do something, they should put it into their manifesto. If they don’t, they should not spend public money on pursuing it (as the former Minister for Independence did, having civil servants dreaming up hypothetical scenarios for Independence negotiations at some unknown time in the future).

The second question is perfectly straightforward and not some kind of riddle at all: when a majority of the Scottish electorate votes for a party that has a manifesto commitment to a referendum. I could not GAS what Margaret Thatcher (now only the UK’s third worst PM!) said on this subject.

I do think there is a clear democratic deficit at play here.

And I say that before even considering the s**tshow that is FPTP.

Is it just me or does anyone else find the co leader thing the Green Partys do a turn off?

The election calculus site has a page with Scotland-specific information, analysis and predictions here https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/scotland.html

Even with attributing all of the “Other” vote share to pro independence parties the total pro independence vote share is 37.9%, which is not a great figure for those in the SNP hoping for a third independence referendum.

If the polls are accurate then the SNP is set to lose almost 60% of it’s MPs, not great for their original plan to use the general election as a substitute referendum.

not every independence supporter will vote for the SNP

According to the vote share on election calculus’ site more than 7 out of 8 do though.

The intention to hold a second referendum was in the SNP’s 2021 manifesto.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56750867

In 2021 the SNP and Green parties combined formed a government which had a majority in Holyrood.  It is true that more people voted for the unionist parties, but only by a ba hair. In 2014 there was a majority of just under 385,000 for the union. In 2021 38,540 more people voted for the unionist parties than for the pro indy parties. Less than the average attendance at Ibrox.  In my opinion the matter is not settled and it won’t be settled by the parties and their supporters staying in their silos and trotting out their party pieces about one another. There is an urgent need for all sides to work together for all of Scotland right now  Unionists should accept that people should be able to campaign for indy and that there should be a legal route to independence. Indy supporters must accept that unionists are just as Scottish as they are.

Is it just me or does anyone else find the co leader thing the Green Partys do a turn off?

Not really – and not saying that as Green voter – it’s more that we seem to focus too much on the leader rather than the party. The leader’s name isn’t on the ballot paper (unless you’re their constituent) and theres no guarantee that the leader you vote for is the leader you’ll get for the duration of the the term. As recent history seems to illustrate north and south of the border (and east and west of another)

You could argue that the Greens are being different for the sake of it, but everyone else is being the same for the sake of it. I don’t see why a party shouldn’t have two leaders, especially in opposition. Our government structure creates one top job for the the party in power but I don’t see why that has to be mirrored by other parties – I don’t even see why a party can’t have 10 leaders.

Not sure something that is 100% expected is “interesting”

Sorry – I should also have said that if this is how the SNP always presents the issue, then you’re right it’s not interesting at all. I thought it was a departure from previous practice esp in the light of Swinney binning the Independence Minister role. If that’s wrong, it’s all unremarkable.

I find the independence topic stifling and frustrating as long as there is no specific proposal on the table. It suffocates the rest of Scottish political discourse when every criticism of the SNP in power is countered with blaming the union as the root cause (even on things like education that are devolved and have always been Scotland specific), and every assessment of the SNP is measured by whether they have or have not moved closer to independence. Not everything in Scottish politics is about independence and the endless wittering (that I do too) about high faluting political principles and constituonal dilemmas is a total fing waste of time

You could argue that the Greens are being different for the sake of it, but everyone else is being the same for the sake of it. I don’t see why a party shouldn’t have two leaders, especially in opposition. Our government structure creates one top job for the the party in power but I don’t see why that has to be mirrored by other parties – I don’t even see why a party can’t have 10 leaders.

Fair enough. But to me it’s being different for the sake of it. And it’s not just political parties that choose a single leader. Sports team nearly always have one captain. Companies have one chief exec. It doesn’t mean other people can’t be highly influential both internally and externally. Personally a leader and sperate spokespeople on different policy areas just works.

So long as the Scottish governments block grant is determined by the Barnett formula then government spending in England will affect Scottish government spending.

Said it before, i’m not sure how this election can be used for any independence argument, there’s a long road for the SNP, Greens and other pro-indy parties to go down to get to the point of pushing hard for a referendum.

As previously, you’ll always have your 25% hardline indy voters, you’ll have the 25% hardline unionists, the battleground for independence is going to be in the middle, where it won’t be swayed by slogans about how good we’d have it with independence, or how we’re better together, it’ll be about the perceived benefits of independence, or staying part of the UK, a lot of those folk aren’t going to sign up to change for the sake of change, so will have to be sold on it, which is why i think the referendum is a fair few years off at least.

” i’m not sure how this election can be used for any independence argument,”

The SNP will claim any vote for them is a vote for indy. So in that respect if the SNP got 51% of the votes they would want indyref 2.  So for me the fewer votes they get the better. Even in a Holyrood election if I thought a new SNP govt would govern Scotland best of all the parties  (fat chance) I wouldn’t vote for them.

In one respect it makes life simple for me.  No need to go  through manifestos. I live in an SNP/LibDem marginal so I vote LibDem.

The route to indy is demonstrating a record of good govt over a decade or more which will persuade floating voters that as the SNP can make a fist of devolved govt then indy  wouldn’t be a car crash. This would get indy support up from around 45% to a consistent 55% or better at which point the UK govt would be morally required to grant indyref 2.

If i’m in the SNP, this is probably the worst time to start planning for a referendum, you’re about to lose the tory government you’ve been slating for a decade, the EU is in a bit of turmoil, lots of things up in the air and you’re coming off a bad year internally and in government.

The most important thing about the next referendum will be timing for the Yes vote

The most important thing about the next referendum will be timing for the Yes vote

I agree, agree. TBH if I was Starmer I’d be saying “Indyref? Yes of course. How about in a month’s time? “ You’d be pretty much guaranteed that Yes would lose & then they are buggered for the next 10+ years. I’ve never seen the sense in allowing the SNP to pick the time of their own choosing.

interesting that the SNP has put independence as line 1 in the manifesto. If they get a majority of MPs in Scotland, I suppose they have a mandate for a referendum in the next term. And if they don’t get a mandate does that mean they’ll stop spending public money on exploring options for independence…?

The SNP can’t win either way in your eyes so utterly perfect for another post

Place independence as the core strategy in your manifesto and you get accused of not dealing with “issues”

Focus on “issues” and you get accused of ignoring independance

So long as the Scottish governments block grant is determined by the Barnett formula then government spending in England will affect Scottish government spending.

And whenever Holyrood wants to do something Westminster disagrees/dislikes then they just pull the Internal Market Card.

“You’d be pretty much guaranteed that Yes would lose & then they are buggered for the next 10+ years.”

Didn’t work the last time. We are only 10 years on from the referendum and the SNP have never stopped trying to get a re-run. The best way to stop it is for the SNP to get a drubbing this year and then lose power in Holyrood in 2026.

Never started trying, more like. It’s why they’re losing membership in droves.

So far we have had one leaflet – SNP, no knocks on the door.

They might not have started but they droned on about it enough.

“Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed she will ask for permission to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence.Ms Sturgeon said she wanted a vote to be held between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of the following year.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39255181

Etc, etc, etc.

he actual research shows the unionist parties talk about the SNP and independence far more than the SNP do

You think. Even during Covid they couldn’t let it go.

“minutes of a Scottish Cabinet meeting dated June 30 2020 showed SNP ministers “agreed that consideration be given to restarting work on independence and a referendum” using “the experience of the coronavirus crisis”.

She insisted this did not result in any action to restart a separation campaign and was merely a “comment”, but Lady Hallett, chairing the inquiry, intervened to note that the minutes stated this had been “agreed”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/31/nicola-sturgeon-uk-covid-inquiry-snp-whatsapp-messages/