Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 hours ago, Carter said:

There's a period of around 30 days where Sturgeon went on BBC to be sat sneering in conversation with Kuenssberg and declare she had "plenty left in the tank" when asked if she would follow the decision made by wokey Ardern, which she emphatically denied, and her ultimate resignation which appear very unusual. What was the purpose of Livingstone meeting Sturgeon and Brown and why was it not documented? 

 

Why did Police Scotland stand back and allow the inauguration of the 'continuity candidate' before they started arresting people. 

 

There's going to be many questions to answer if this Branchform investigation is made to go away. 

 

Roles of Chief Constable and Lord Advocate have become particularly politicised since these rogues took office. 

You are more clued up than me about who meets who and why. There are freedom of info laws that you can use if you are minded to ask about agendas and notes of meetings but given the language you are using 'sneering' and 'wokey' for example, I think you have made your mind up for yourself and don't really want to exercise public interest rights.

FWIW, I do want branchform to get to the bottom of any shenanigans and if wrongdoing has occurred let justice take its course. As I said, I find set piece 'swoops' and Fred West tents for allegations of fraud are peculiar so I'm interested in knowing what that was all about too. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 hours ago, TallPaul said:

There's absolutely no chance they would get 50% of the popular vote. Even at they height of their popularity the SNP couldn't manage it

I never said SNP could get 50%. I said pro independence parties. Hard of thinking chaps often struggle to get their heads around that.

The independence campaign got 45% of the vote when it went to a referendum and the governing party were a lot less toxic than the current mob. I don't see it as such a massive leap that pro independence parties could have gained an additional 5% if the governing party and largest of a pro  independence scottish political movement had got their arse in gear. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 hour ago, Gundermann said:

 

Explained myself in the discussion with Mr Smith. I won't revisit the point. 

[TallPaul]

4 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I never said SNP could get 50%. I said pro independence parties. Hard of thinking chaps often struggle to get their heads around that.

The independence campaign got 45% of the vote when it went to a referendum and the governing party were a lot less toxic than the current mob. I don't see it as such a massive leap that pro independence parties could have gained an additional 5% if the governing party and largest of a pro  independence scottish political movement had got their arse in gear. 

The Greens and Alba are never getting 5% + of the vote. Btw the Greens are only loosely pro indy they will swing to whoever offers Lorna and Paddy a cushy number 

Edited December 5, 2023 by TallPaul

[i wish jj was my dad]

Just now, TallPaul said:

What meaningful percentage do you think Alba and the Greens could contribute? Btw the Greens are only loosely pro indy they will swing to whoever offers Lorna and Paddy a cushy number 

No idea. I'm going on the numbers that voted yes. 

One challenge that the pro independence movement have is criticism if the governing party try to make the case they get slaughtered for not focusing on the day job. The same folk who slaughter them say it's not up to them to make a case for the union. 

ATM I would rather we used existing devolved powers to prove a credible alternative and make life better for citizens. My guess is that a moderate UKG that actually governs in the national interest will make independence less of an issue in the short term but the last 10 years have shown how quickly a relatively moderate mainstream party can turn into a populist shower of winkers when they realise how simple it is to stoke up a baying mob of easily led bigots instead of implementing responsible policies.  I'm worried about that so I'm hoping Labour are in for a while at WM.  

[TallPaul]

51 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

No idea. I'm going on the numbers that voted yes. 

One challenge that the pro independence movement have is criticism if the governing party try to make the case they get slaughtered for not focusing on the day job. The same folk who slaughter them say it's not up to them to make a case for the union. 

ATM I would rather we used existing devolved powers to prove a credible alternative and make life better for citizens. My guess is that a moderate UKG that actually governs in the national interest will make independence less of an issue in the short term but the last 10 years have shown how quickly a relatively moderate mainstream party can turn into a populist shower of winkers when they realise how simple it is to stoke up a baying mob of easily led bigots instead of implementing responsible policies.  I'm worried about that so I'm hoping Labour are in for a while at WM.  

Agree the SNP had a golden opportunity a decade ago and blew it. No clear plan followed by some chancers that lept of the gravy train. Under Elsie they become too left wing to win over certain voters then played to a crowd that was enough to keep them in a job but never a majority for change.

[i wish jj was my dad]

18 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

Agree the SNP had a golden opportunity a decade ago and blew it. No clear plan followed by some chancers that lept of the gravy train. Under Elsie they become too left wing to win over certain voters then played to a crowd that was enough to keep them in a job but never a majority for change.

Still not getting the difference between the SNP and independence. 

You managed to win the bullshit bingo though: Elsie, gravy train, left wing. Congratulations for cramming all three in👏. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Explained myself in the discussion with Mr Smith. I won't revisit the point. 

 

I'd argue that the situation you're talking about would be pounced upon as proof that the status quo works, that no additional transfer is appropriate.

[i wish jj was my dad]

12 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

I'd argue that the situation you're talking about would be pounced upon as proof that the status quo works, that no additional transfer is appropriate.

Agree to disagree. We're on different sides of the argument tbh.

My interest is about improving the quality of life in the country. I'm not convinced independence is necessarily the vehicle for that. Devolution could work but it needs both administrations to be grown up enough to work together and we've been let down by both sides. 

If the current SG had made better use of the powers and resources at their disposal particularly post brexit I think they could have run the next two elections on a defacto mandate for a referendum and there would have been every chance they would have secured enough votes to force the issue and at the very least increased devolved powers. I think that opportunity is lost for now but post war history suggests that the UK is unlikely to hold Scotland against its will

[manaliveits105]

Zat right aye 

[jimbojambo]

If Brexit has achieved nothing else it has demonstrated that it is not a simple matter to get out of a long established relationship with your largest trading partner so independence is a non starter as who wants more of the same starting at Berwick. I would love Labour or the LibDems to campaign on a second Brexit vote as they would win a landslide and things could return to normal. 

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Agree to disagree. We're on different sides of the argument tbh.

My interest is about improving the quality of life in the country. I'm not convinced independence is necessarily the vehicle for that. Devolution could work but it needs both administrations to be grown up enough to work together and we've been let down by both sides. 

If the current SG had made better use of the powers and resources at their disposal particularly post brexit I think they could have run the next two elections on a defacto mandate for a referendum and there would have been every chance they would have secured enough votes to force the issue and at the very least increased devolved powers. I think that opportunity is lost for now but post war history suggests that the UK is unlikely to hold Scotland against its will

 

Nah, the goalposts would be moved.

 

My thing is Scotland's electorate deciding Scotland's government.

 

No one else should be doing it.

[Roxy Hearts]

4 minutes ago, jimbojambo said:

If Brexit has achieved nothing else it has demonstrated that it is not a simple matter to get out of a long established relationship with your largest trading partner so independence is a non starter as who wants more of the same starting at Berwick. I would love Labour or the LibDems to campaign on a second Brexit vote as they would win a landslide and things could return to normal. 

 

Would trading stop? 

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Would trading stop? 

 

I'd like to see many things stay the same, I just think Scotland should decide who governs Scotland.

 

[Roxy Hearts]

6 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

I'd like to see many things stay the same, I just think Scotland should decide who governs Scotland.

 

I agree. Just asking the poster. Unionists can't think out the box! You know that Smithee.

[Unknown user]

22 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I agree. Just asking the poster. Unionists can't think out the box! You know that Smithee.

Aye I'm not aiming, just adding.

[jimbojambo]

1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Would trading stop? 

Obviously not but the increased bureaucracy has resulted in many firms ceasing trading and the current Irish arrangement shows their could not be free movement of goods especially if an independent Scotland rejoined the EU. Obviously by my logic if you have a new UK vote on EU membership then you would have to grant the SNP a new independence vote. I really don't like the terrible UK and Scottish governments and just want things back to how they were prior to the divise votes and to be governed fairly by competent people whether they are Scottish or not. 

[Unknown user]

27 minutes ago, jimbojambo said:

Obviously not but the increased bureaucracy has resulted in many firms ceasing trading and the current Irish arrangement shows their could not be free movement of goods especially if an independent Scotland rejoined the EU. Obviously by my logic if you have a new UK vote on EU membership then you would have to grant the SNP a new independence vote. I really don't like the terrible UK and Scottish governments and just want things back to how they were prior to the divise votes and to be governed fairly by competent people whether they are Scottish or not. 

 

Why the assumption that there'd be increased bureaucracy? Maybe we'll be in a customs union with England 🤷‍♂️ 

 

This whole question is about one thing - should Scotland govern itself or should Westminster?

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

Aye I'm not aiming, just adding.

👍I know.

[Ulysses]

34 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Why the assumption that there'd be increased bureaucracy? Maybe we'll be in a customs union with England 🤷‍♂️ 

 

 

 

Maybe you won't.

 

And it matters.

 

The mistake that the Brexiteers made was assuming that the EU and the UK would have the same degree of interest in agreeing a trade deal and the same leverage in negotiations. But the EU had a bit less interest and a lot more leverage.  That's why we ended up with a deal that has reduced the overall trade between us and reduced economic growth in both places.

 

Scotland and the rUK, primarily England, would be in a similar position. The rUK would have a bit less interest than Scotland would have in doing a trade deal, and would have a lot more leverage.  English trade is highly important to the Scottish economy.  Conversely, Scottish trade is of considerably less importance to the English economy.  IIRC, the imbalance between the two is bigger than the imbalance between the EU and the UK when the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was being negotiated.

 

That means that a trade deal between the two would largely be dictated by England. In that situation it would be a mistake to assume that England would be all that interested in cutting a deal, and possibly an even bigger mistake to assume that England wouldn't use its considerable leverage to its advantage - to the extent that a trade deal could even restrict Scotland's trade and economic policies.

[Unknown user]

21 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Maybe you won't.

 

And it matters.

 

The mistake that the Brexiteers made was assuming that the EU and the UK would have the same degree of interest in agreeing a trade deal and the same leverage in negotiations. But the EU had a bit less interest and a lot more leverage.  That's why we ended up with a deal that has reduced the overall trade between us and reduced economic growth in both places.

 

Scotland and the rUK, primarily England, would be in a similar position. The rUK would have a bit less interest than Scotland would have in doing a trade deal, and would have a lot more leverage.  English trade is highly important to the Scottish economy.  Conversely, Scottish trade is of considerably less importance to the English economy.  IIRC, the imbalance between the two is bigger than the imbalance between the EU and the UK when the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was being negotiated.

 

That means that a trade deal between the two would largely be dictated by England. In that situation it would be a mistake to assume that England would be all that interested in cutting a deal, and possibly an even bigger mistake to assume that England wouldn't use its considerable leverage to its advantage - to the extent that a trade deal could even restrict Scotland's trade and economic policies.

 

Do you suggest that Scotland shouldn't seek independence in case England acts the *****?

[Gundermann]

Interesting that ScotGov is getting grief on BBC re coonsull funding. Wonder what's happening down south...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67630756

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 hours ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Nah, the goalposts would be moved.

 

My thing is Scotland's electorate deciding Scotland's government.

 

No one else should be doing it.

The votes have to be earned to change the status quo though. The opportunity is still there. 

[TallPaul]

7 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Would trading stop? 

Depends if you want a no deal scexit?

[TallPaul]

10 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Still not getting the difference between the SNP and independence. 

You managed to win the bullshit bingo though: Elsie, gravy train, left wing. Congratulations for cramming all three in👏. 

Who else was responsible for delivering the argument and plan for independence?

 

 

[Roxy Hearts]

3 hours ago, TallPaul said:

Depends if you want a no deal scexit?

Would there be trading? Don't need childish words like "scexit"! Does the stinking, rotten Westminster Government still trade with the EU in their childish "oven ready" deal?

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Would there be trading? Don't need childish words like "scexit"! Does the stinking, rotten Westminster Government still trade with the EU in their childish "oven ready" deal?

 

For all it's many, many flaws, Westminster doesn't actually have much of a history of acting the ***** when former colonies gain their independence.

[Roxy Hearts]

39 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

For all it's many, many flaws, Westminster doesn't actually have much of a history of acting the ***** when former colonies gain their independence.

Westminster is full of nonsense. Realpolitik takes over once the propaganda is over! 

[TallPaul]

1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Would there be trading? Don't need childish words like "scexit"! Does the stinking, rotten Westminster Government still trade with the EU in their childish "oven ready" deal?

What's wrong with Scexit? I've seen you use the expression Brexit so what's the difference 

[Roxy Hearts]

28 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

What's wrong with Scexit? I've seen you use the expression Brexit so what's the difference 

It's not the same.

[Unknown user]

30 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

What's wrong with Scexit? I've seen you use the expression Brexit so what's the difference 

 

Call it what you like, the alternative is dependence

[TallPaul]

5 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It's not the same.

Why?

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Do you suggest that Scotland shouldn't seek independence in case England acts the *****?

 

I haven't suggested that England might act the whatever.

 

I've pointed out that England would act in its own best interests, just as the EU did in the TCA negotiations - and it would be absolutely right for it to do so.

 

That would mean that Scotland, as the party with less leverage in trade negotiations, might have to either:

 

(1) Sacrifice some independence of its trade and economic policies in order to secure a favourable trade deal with its most essential trading partner;

 

(2) Sacrifice some degree of trade, and associated economic activity and tax revenues, in order to secure a higher degree of independence in its trade and economic policies.

 

It would be a mistake to assume that those difficult choices would not arise.  Brexiteers made four big misplaced assumptions.  They assumed that the EU's dependence on trade with the UK was greater than it actually was.  They assumed that the EU would want to continue treating the UK as an insider after it left. They assumed that they were equal partners with equal leverage in trade negotiations. And because of those three assumptions, they assumed that the UK could leave and that things could carry on just as they had done before.

 

Given that the recent history is all too clear, Scotland can't make the same misplaced assumptions.  If Scotland leaves the UK it will have to negotiate a trade deal, and the prudent assumption Scotland has to make is that such a trade deal will either restrict economic growth and tax revenues or else restrict Scotland's freedom to pursue independent trade and economic policies.

 

For some people, that's just how it works and they'll be perfectly comfortable taking the risks and making the choices.  For others, it's an economic and potentially social disruption that they would consider unwelcome and possibly unnecessary.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Ulysses

[i wish jj was my dad]

5 hours ago, TallPaul said:

Who else was responsible for delivering the argument and plan for independence?

 

 

You think that the SNP alone support independence? 

[John Findlay]

Just now, i wish jj was my dad said:

You think that the SNP alone support independence? 

If not the SNP which political party in Scotland is going to achieve independence?

[henrysmithsgloves]

5 hours ago, TallPaul said:

Depends if you want a no deal scexit?

Wonder what happened to Noel Edmunds

 

[TallPaul]

9 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If not the SNP which political party in Scotland is going to achieve independence?

[i wish jj was my dad]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If not the SNP which political party in Scotland is going to achieve independence?

I don't think it is solely down to the SNP deliver independence.  There are 2 other parties currently represented in Holyrood and WM and there is support in other parties.  The 2014 referendum campaign and 2017 Brexit campaigns both ran across party lines. 

 

As I've said I think that the SNP government blew their opportunity to secure independence which I doubt will come around again soon so I don't see any political party delivering in the immediate future if that answers your question?

 

All that said, I never anticipated the post devolution rise of the independence movement or the UK Tories transforming into the BNP so I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask that question.  Nor am I sure that more disruption and upheaval is what Scotland needs given the damage of Austerity, Brexit, cost of living & fuel security crisis are already doing to the country.  I'd prefer a period of stability to repair some of that damage and hopefully get Scotland and the UK start governing in the interests of our citizens.   

[John Findlay]

39 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I don't think it is solely down to the SNP deliver independence.  There are 2 other parties currently represented in Holyrood and WM and there is support in other parties.  The 2014 referendum campaign and 2017 Brexit campaigns both ran across party lines. 

 

As I've said I think that the SNP government blew their opportunity to secure independence which I doubt will come around again soon so I don't see any political party delivering in the immediate future if that answers your question?

 

All that said, I never anticipated the post devolution rise of the independence movement or the UK Tories transforming into the BNP so I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask that question.  Nor am I sure that more disruption and upheaval is what Scotland needs given the damage of Austerity, Brexit, cost of living & fuel security crisis are already doing to the country.  I'd prefer a period of stability to repair some of that damage and hopefully get Scotland and the UK start governing in the interests of our citizens.   

So that's a no to my question then.

Good governance I wholly agree with but, alas we are getting neither from both Holyrood or Westminster. What's even more galling, there doesn't appear anyone or any party to step in at either parliament.

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, TallPaul said:

Why?

Have we always traded with Ireland?

[John Findlay]

58 minutes ago, henrysmithsgloves said:

Wonder what happened to Noel Edmunds

 

This guy nicked his job.

[Dennis Denuto]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

I haven't suggested that England might act the whatever.

 

I've pointed out that England would act in its own best interests, just as the EU did in the TCA negotiations - and it would be absolutely right for it to do so.

 

That would mean that Scotland, as the party with less leverage in trade negotiations, might have to either:

 

(1) Sacrifice some independence of its trade and economic policies in order to secure a favourable trade deal with its most essential trading partner;

 

(2) Sacrifice some degree of trade, and associated economic activity and tax revenues, in order to secure a higher degree of independence in its trade and economic policies.

 

It would be a mistake to assume that those difficult choices would not arise.  Brexiteers made four big misplaced assumptions.  They assumed that the EU's dependence on trade with the UK was greater than it actually was.  They assumed that the EU would want to continue treating the UK as an insider after it left. They assumed that they were equal partners with equal leverage in trade negotiations. And because of those three assumptions, they assumed that the UK could leave and that things could carry on just as they had done before.

 

Given that the recent history is all too clear, Scotland can't make the same misplaced assumptions.  If Scotland leaves the UK it will have to negotiate a trade deal, and the prudent assumption Scotland has to make is that such a trade deal will either restrict economic growth and tax revenues or else restrict Scotland's freedom to pursue independent trade and economic policies.

 

For some people, that's just how it works and they'll be perfectly comfortable taking the risks and making the choices.  For others, it's an economic and potentially social disruption that they would consider unwelcome and possibly unnecessary.

 

 

One difference is that currently Scotland do not receive any Tax from the goods 'traded' to the rUK, nor the EU or anywhere else for that matter.

 

Now I am not saying that we would want to harm our exports industries but there is a slight subtle difference in the negotiations compared to the Brexit ones.

 

I think it should be clear to everyone that the UK leaving the EU has made Scttish Independence much more complicated than it would have been in 2014.

[TallPaul]

17 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Have we always traded with Ireland?

What a random question and I couldn't categorically answer whether or not there has been continuous trade in our 300 year history could you?

 

I guess the only difference between scexit and Brexit is the fact the UK has always been a larger trading partner for Scotland than the EU ever was.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I haven't suggested that England might act the whatever.

 

I've pointed out that England would act in its own best interests, just as the EU did in the TCA negotiations - and it would be absolutely right for it to do so.

 

That would mean that Scotland, as the party with less leverage in trade negotiations, might have to either:

 

(1) Sacrifice some independence of its trade and economic policies in order to secure a favourable trade deal with its most essential trading partner;

 

(2) Sacrifice some degree of trade, and associated economic activity and tax revenues, in order to secure a higher degree of independence in its trade and economic policies.

 

It would be a mistake to assume that those difficult choices would not arise.  Brexiteers made four big misplaced assumptions.  They assumed that the EU's dependence on trade with the UK was greater than it actually was.  They assumed that the EU would want to continue treating the UK as an insider after it left. They assumed that they were equal partners with equal leverage in trade negotiations. And because of those three assumptions, they assumed that the UK could leave and that things could carry on just as they had done before.

 

Given that the recent history is all too clear, Scotland can't make the same misplaced assumptions.  If Scotland leaves the UK it will have to negotiate a trade deal, and the prudent assumption Scotland has to make is that such a trade deal will either restrict economic growth and tax revenues or else restrict Scotland's freedom to pursue independent trade and economic policies.

 

For some people, that's just how it works and they'll be perfectly comfortable taking the risks and making the choices.  For others, it's an economic and potentially social disruption that they would consider unwelcome and possibly unnecessary.

 

 

Excellent posting 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It's not the same.

 

[Ulysses]

57 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

One difference is that currently Scotland do not receive any Tax from the goods 'traded' to the rUK, nor the EU or anywhere else for that matter.

 

Now I am not saying that we would want to harm our exports industries but there is a slight subtle difference in the negotiations compared to the Brexit ones.

 

I think it should be clear to everyone that the UK leaving the EU has made Scttish Independence much more complicated than it would have been in 2014.

 

I think you might have misread my point about tax revenues. Exports don't generate tax revenues for governments, and I'm not suggesting they do.  But if you depress economic activity (e.g. by restricting your trade with a partner market) you also depress tax yields associated with that activity - less Corporation Tax, less Income Tax, and so on.

 

If you can afford to depress tax yields, and if the economic gains in other markets outweigh the losses in the market you've restricted, then the strategy (or gamble) has paid off.  But if you can't afford to depress yields, or if you don't get the payoff in other markets, you've got bother.

 

Could Scotland afford to put the squeeze on tax yields?  I'm not sure any part of the UK can do that as things stand.  Would the gains in other markets materialise?  The UK's experience so far since leaving the EU would suggest not.

 

In the long run, it should probably all work out. I don't think Scotland is any better or worse qualified to generate income, living standards and wealth whether inside or outside the UK.  But it could be a different story until that long run is reached.

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

In the long run

Thsts the issue I have . How long ? Even  snp admit decades 

[Ulysses]

20 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Thsts the issue I have . How long ? Even  snp admit decades 

 

It could be.  But of course that's only an issue if things get worse first.  That may happen, but it may not.

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 hours ago, John Findlay said:

So that's a no to my question then.

Good governance I wholly agree with but, alas we are getting neither from both Holyrood or Westminster. What's even more galling, there doesn't appear anyone or any party to step in at either parliament.

I don't know why you asked me tbh. 

I've already said I'd prefer to make the devolution settlement work rather than create even more turbulence

[TallPaul]

Who remembers Free in 23? I hear it's now Oot the door in 24 😂

 

PS Happy New Year to all you Brits 🇬🇧

Edited January 1 by TallPaul