Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nicola Sturgeon should go for a second Independence referendum
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nicola Sturgeon should go for a second Independence referendum says Alastair Meeks
A year ago I wrote about why Nicola Sturgeon was so chary of committing to a second referendum on independence. With the SNP hegemonic in Scotland but with Yes continuing to lag in the polls, I formed the view that Nicola Sturgeon would probably not seek an unequivocal mandate for a second referendum in the SNP’s manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood elections for fear of losing one. So it proved.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If Britain is supposed to be leaving the EU in 2019, and Scotland is leaving the UK to stay in the EU, does that mean you have to do Scottish independence in two years as well? That sounds a little bit tight.
Alternatively maybe Sturgeon could say that Brexit would be delayed while the Scots got their shit together. But then they have the same problem they did with the pound: They'd be saying rUK would do something, but all the while rUK would be saying "no, we wouldn't". And the EU needs to agree unanimously as well, which Spain and potentially other countries with separatist problems would pretend to intend to veto.
Or maybe they say they'd leave the EU with Britain then leave Britain and go back into the EU? But that's *two* irksome things, so now you have double the FUD.
I suppose they might conceivably say, "You voted to leave but your referendum is illegitimate, so we'll schedule our own", then try to game the question and the timing to make that one harder to win.
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
Good on Obama:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37621371/obama-signs-law-for-male-toilets-in-the-us-to-be-equipped-with-baby-change
Unbelievably, a soft play centre I occasionally go to with the little 'un has no baby change facilities in the male washroom. I had to either change him on the toilet floor, or on the carpet outside.
If Sturgeon doesn't like the result again, what's to stop her calling one in another two years, then another two years and so on?
Can we have a thread on Qexit please?
A slim majority of those who voted, voted for it.
Turnout was respectable, but had we had compulsory voting then remain would probably have won.
National - Fox News - Sample 912 - 15-17 Oct
Clinton 49 .. Trump 42
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/18/fox-news-poll-clinton-tops-trump-by-6-points.html
National - IPSOS/Reuters - Sample 1.187 - 13-17 Oct
Clinton 42.5 .. Trump 37.6
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_26/filters/LIKELY:1
National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Sample 2,983 - 18 Oct
Clinton 43.3 .. Trump 44.9
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Remoaners do themselves few favours with remarks like that.
Clinton 48 .. Trump 46
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ce17282d-d070-493a-8bcd-ee02ca9016e6
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tc2K4j4iqs
In the Brave New World on PB legally binding agreements are a trivial nuisance. It's Nationalist pride that counts, apparently.
I particularly liked this from the previous thread.
MP_SE Posts:
Sean_F said:
» show previous quotes
I don't think the ECJ would have jurisdiction.
They don't.
Scene: The High Court
Lawyer A: "M'Lord, given that this case hinges on the rights of citizens granted under treaties of the European Union, it appears that some aspects of the case pertinent to those rights and their application may need to be referred to the ECJ"
Lawyer B: "Nah, mate, some bloke on an Internet forum says they don't have jurisdiction"
Judge: "Sorted, Bruv"
Oh.
Not quite sure on what grounds, unless trolling the establishment is a ground for pulling such petitions.
May and tbe Brexiteers faffing about is doing no good at all. Quexit is a great neoligism.
Alastair is right about Indyref 2 "If not now, when?". Scotland decisively voted to Remain, and while the economic case for independence is weaker, the political one is stronger.
They miss the back door in Ireland. The Common Travel Area will leave a porous border between the UK and EU. Whatever froth may appear on the lips of David Davis and Liam Fox, the border remains open. So Scotland doing the same wouldn't be a problem - but surely this is where the whole concept of a "United Kingdom" gets silly.
The UK survived losing one component. It wouldnt survive two. Time to look at federal or confederation solutions. And the same for the EU.
Contrary to the indications immediately after EUref, the balance of view on Scotindy hasn't significantly changed because of the UK vote.
The unknown is whether, like last time, the balance would shift significantly towards independence during any second referendum? If it does, then the yes side is as good as home already. However the first referendum is an unusual example of a campaign shifting sentiment significantly - and support for independence hasn't sunk back to pre-campaign levels. So it is more likely that the bulk of those receptive to the idea have already been won over?
The SNP would have one significant advantage during a second campaign. Their opponents would be an unhappy mix of mostly pro-Brexit Tories, and pro-Remain Labour and LibDems, pushed to campaign together in the middle of an exit process on which they profoundly disagree. I don't see this working out too well either in terms of campaign messaging or co-operation? Plus everyone will be aware, as they weren't last time, that a referendum campaign can shift the terms of domestic politics; no-one will want to volunteer to repeat Labour's experience last time, where winning did them no favours at all.
So the stakes are high, all round!
I just have a horrible feeling at the pit of my stomach that Alastair is right.
Now, not so much. The collapse of the tax take from the North Sea has done horrendous things to the GERS figures. It is frankly unarguable that an independent Scotland would have to cut public spending by at least 10% across the Board more or less immediately, possibly a lot more. The currency argument is still not answered. The new risk of losing our single market with rUK in the event of a hard Brexit is well understood and discussed. And the Scottish Tories are much stronger than they were making Scotland seem not quite so different.
For those who care most about independence none of this matters. Like Brexiteers they are sanguine about some temporary hardship and believe that in the long run running our own affairs will compensate. But they are nowhere near a majority. The coalition Salmond put together included a significant number of wishful thinkers. I don't think Sturgeon could get them at this stage.
[Theresa May] might simultaneously be seeking to negotiate soft Brexit with Brussels while warning of the effects of hard Brexit in Scotland.
I actually thought you were going to say that May would be warning of the effects of hard Sexit. And hard Sexit is a lot harder than hard Brexit.
No vote, no voice.
Judging from the last time around the timescale from any decision to hold a referendum to the event itself would be at least two years, which coincides rather neatly with the post A50 period. Brexit negotiations would be even more of a Horlicks than they look like being now.
a) struggle to believe that Scots would rather be governed from Brussels than Westminster
b) in any case consider getting part of the UK out better than none at all.
Of course, that does beg the question of why Scotland would want to be part of the EU. It's one thing for 62% to vote for Remain as part of the UK and when the UK was a member; it might be a rather different proposition with the UK already on the outside and Scotland considering membership in its own right, with all that would imply. Scotland might get away with not signing up to Schengen for the same reason that Ireland hasn't but signing up to the Euro would have to be a given - and with the probability that there'd be an expiry date on the underwritten usage of Sterling, there'd have to be a transition to a different currency. The logic points inevitably to an early Euro adoption.
But those arguments would apply whenever. If EU membership is central to the independence case then yes, the referendum must be held asap, when the arguments haven't completely run against it and when there's leverage in the Brexit talks. Still begs the question of why Scotland would want to sign up to domination from Brussels.
But Salmond achieved a truly remarkable majority in a system that was supposed to make that almost impossible. Sturgeon did not. Whilst still totally dominant the SNP are past their peak. Next year they will take Glasgow from SLAB and increase their hold on some of the central belt councils but they will slip back in the borders and north of Perth.
Brexit is creating another kind of strain. One-third of SNP voters supported it. And, as one young delegate told me, he and other Leavers aren’t happy about the party leadership demonising Brexit and trying to make it synonymous with the Tories and xenophobia.
Until Brexit, he’d never disagreed with Ms Sturgeon but now he disagreed more and more.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14803842.Could_the_SNP_bubble_be_about__to_burst_/
My guess is that the "stay" effort would fall almost entirely upon the Tories. That would position them very well for the post-referendum environment - you can see a two-party system emerging in Scotland already. But are the Tories really able to carry a majority in a Scottish vote? That would have been a clear QTWTAIN until very recently. Strike when your opponents are in maximum disarray is something that will be on Sturgeon's mind.
Once the three stooges begin to flesh out their proposals, or when they inevitably leak during negotiations, or when the final deal is announced, it might become a much-welcomed runner.
I think there will be too many sensible types nevertheless at whatever juncture however.
£350m a week extra for the NHS doesn't sound much like "potentially worse off"
When the true numbers are revealed, we will get a better sense of just how happy the English are with "sovereignty"
The SNP are the establishment in Scotland now in the same way that SLAB used to be. Ask the newish Lord President of the Court of Session whether it is a good thing to be known to be an SNP supporter or not.
The chances of Sturgeon calling indy ref 2 must be vanishingly low now, because while there is always going to be a certain amount of pain with constitutional upheaval, it has to be within an acceptable limit. Finding yourself adrift from both the EU and Sterling would be the perfect storm for Scotland. To join the EU from outside (for surely the Spanish and others would block any retention of membership), requires a currency, a move to a 3% deficit limit, and all with the object of joining the Euro, a currency which has proven itself a busted flush for all but a handful of nations.
So I see all this talk of Indy Ref 2 as nothing more than 'continuity remain' simply moving their tanks onto a different lawn.
Perhaps when there is existing flux within the Union. Perhaps not when things become more settled.
If you turn the question around and ask whether independence for Scotland is riskier with or without the EU, perhaps the answer starts to come into view?
And Brexit offers an Edinburgh inside the EU some big opportunities (assuming rUK actually leaves, rather than falls into panic as the union starts to disintegrate).
The English need to wake up to the fact that brexit means break up of the UK. People don't realise that.
If the UK leaves, and Scotland joins, with all that entails, then in 10 years Edinburgh might be able to compete with Frankfurt for some Euro business.
It would not compete with London, for anything.
IF there is going to be a moment when Indy ref 2 looms large, it will be once the deal is done with Brussels and we are out and therefore the joining of the EU is matter for Scotland alone as a new entrant. The SNP does not really want 'independence' - it wants subjugation into anything other than the Union - and the EU is a good enough alternative.
Once the goal is achieved there is nothing to keep them together.
If the UK leaves the EU then I'd have thought that an independent Scotland outside the EU was a far more attractive proposition to it than 'independence' within the EU. Both, however, are riskier than remaining within the UK.
And I stand by 'domination'. The EU is led by the big countries, the Commission and the ECJ. I suspect that those who complain about their budget having to be sent to London to be signed off like homework won't be impressed that much the same would apply once in the Eurozone.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
Apparently, this is not a joke.
Nor is keeping Sterling the attraction for voting No that it once was, as it heads towards the status of a basket case currency post Brexit.
Ironically, the best chance of a Scottish Con government is post-independence.
It would be a good idea if all these Remoaners were transported to Greece to see what not having the guts to do a Grexit has done to that poor benighted country.
Anyone handwaving away the idea that the MSM aren't in the tank with the DNC, that voter fraud isn't happening or things are basically okay isn't using their eyes. Comey at the FBI isn't neutral at all - the whole thing stinks - not trusting the FBI anymore?? Who can you go to when you meet a wall of collusion, pay for play and arse covering. No wonder why so many are going WTF right now.