Should Scotland be an independent country?

[indianajones]

8 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

I'm one of those that said no the last time but now I would be a definite yes.I wasn't even on the fence before I was a def no.So yes I do have the right to change my mind despite what the media and politians want to say.

 

 

I am the opposite to yourself. Was yes but now massively on the fence. 

 

 

[vegas-voss]

Just now, The Maroon Pound said:

What makes you change your mind? 

The state of the UK under the Tories and as much as I would like to think things would get better under Labour if they got in I'm not sure it would now the damage with Brexit has been done.

[vegas-voss]

2 minutes ago, indianajones said:

 

 

I am the opposite to yourself. Was yes but now massively on the fence. 

 

 

That's fine but do you also feel you have the right to change your mind.

[indianajones]

2 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

That's fine but do you also feel you have the right to change your mind.

 

100%. 

[vegas-voss]

Just now, indianajones said:

 

100%. 

👍

[The Mighty Thor]

15 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

The Tories are out on their arse next election so maybe safer to see what follows rather than jump into unknown troubles the SNP won't come clean about.

I've heard this argument many times. 

 

'Things will be better with another individual or party in power'  or 'you can't vote yes based on Johnson'

 

In my lifetime we've had multiple Tory governments in Westminster and Labour in power all over Scotland and not a single one of them has had Scotland's interests at heart. 

 

Governing Scotland has been carried out through a governor general and the method of governance has been 'give them just enough to keep the sweaties piped down', whilst maintaining the myth that we're scroungers and spongers and we're lucky to be getting what we're getting. 

 

The majority of the regional and local infrastructure and communities improvements came from the EEC Regional Development Fund, of which Scotland were huge beneficiaries. 

 

What does that future look like? A series of ever decreasing circles where London and the SE levels up and Scotland goes backwards as it's unable to decide what it wants for itself?  

 

Surely this country is better than that?

[Roxy Hearts]

3 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Scotland can’t use sterling unless the British govt agree. They made that clear last time. Wouldnt be a great idea either for the reasons you state. 
We can use the pound though. That’s not the same thing. 

Why can't gutless Unionists just state the pound would tank if Scotland got independence as a chunk of its resources which support it are gone. It would be better to use Sterling at first then transition to our own currency. 

 

The impression I get is that Westminster really hate us and the thought of the people of Scotland managing their own affairs. 

 

Surely there'd be grown up negotiations and consultations that would be benefit both states. The SNP and others need to get it right this time and neutralise the upcoming scare stories. 

[Boab]

Listening to Swinney, it seems the Nats are confident of gaining most votes to justify a mandate after the next GE.

They would need another 300K votes to do that, going on the 2019 Election.

The turn out was 68% so maybe they are banking on securing those numbers with an increased turn out.

Still risky but I can see their logic with a new batch of voters on the scene.

[Byyy The Light]

2 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

If anyone has time, or even cares, then the dissolution of Czechoslovakia is a good area to read about. 

Was a reasonably amicable split, unlike Yugoslavia and Sudan, and very much like one that should we make the move, one we could copy.

Co-operation between both countries, shared embassies abroad and free movement (both in EU) have helped although it's still almost equal between those who think it was mistake to spilt and those who don't.

Interesting that they didn't have referendum on whether to do it, it was decision agreed between two regional authorities. Universally accepted it would have failed referendum with only around 36% indicating they would have voted to split.

Anyway, they negotiated as adults and equals with very little bitterness.

Could our politicians(on both sides) be trusted to do likewise?

 

This is one of the biggest issues for me.  We've seen how the Westminster Government dealt with Brexit.

 

We could have a new Government in place by then of course but it still doesn't fill me with much confidence.  The media will get their oar in and be spinning all sorts too.  Can't see it being amicable unfortunately.

[Lone Striker]

18 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

The Tories are out on their arse next election so maybe safer to see what follows rather than jump into unknown troubles the SNP won't come clean about.

Well, maybe. Maybe not.   But my take on the "now is not the time" response (now being repeated by Boris etc) covers several real reasons -

 

- the UK government of the day doesn't  wants to risk being the one which allowed the breakup of the UK

- better to kick the can down the road as far as possible.

- leave it for a future  PM to handle

-  hope that the Scottish electorate start to get indy-fatigue that leads to the SNP losing ground.

 

Cameron took a chance back in 2012/13 by agreeing a pre-ref and post-ref process with Salmond.   Lucky for him, it worked out - but his attempt to score a second goal in 2015 backfired in a hugely damaging way for everyone except the ERG nutjobs and the hedge fund casino/spiv  sector.

 

Its been a great last few pages, by the way.   Refreshing to see folks give their views in a reasoned way, and for background on some historic comparisons (Ireland, Czech etc) 👍 - apart from the 2 usual suspect, that is. 🙄

 

 

[hughesie27]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

You are presuming they aren't  happy with only a devolved government run by the SNP.

 

Assuming all SNP voters want independence is a reach.

Not that far a reach tbh. We must be talking single digit % of their voters.

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

16 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

The state of the UK under the Tories and as much as I would like to think things would get better under Labour if they got in I'm not sure it would now the damage with Brexit has been done.

Is this not a general election issue? 

As in an independent Scotland I'm pretty sure the political parties will not agree on everything if anything and still have separate mandates to run the country 

[Unknown user]

13 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Not that far a reach tbh. We must be talking single digit % of their voters.

It's hard to imagine there will be any significant number

[graygo]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

You are presuming they aren't  happy with only a devolved government run by the SNP.

 

Assuming all SNP voters want independence is a reach.

 

If they campaign on a single issue ticket at the next general election then it won't be a reach to assume that.

[Ked]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Independence is clearly the most pressing issue.

Actually I'd argue that it is.

I really believe that the dependency to England has had an effect on the health of Scotland.

Of course there are many factors but although the current SG has a poor record on this let's be honest we have pre devolution and much further back had an abusive relationship with substance abuse.

Going back to @Ulyssespost earlier in the thread he says Ireland now is a much healthier nation.

I'm sure they had a similar problem to ours not with drugs maybe but alcohol.

The argument for me covers everything not just the monetary stuff.

I get where you are coming from but you cannot put everything on halt because of one problem as serious as that is.

[Unknown user]

14 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

If they campaign on a single issue ticket at the next general election then it won't be a reach to assume that.

There are surely more independence supporters who don't vote SNP than unionists who do.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Smithee

[Ked]

13 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Irish people hate the British Tories - venomously so.  Yet Irish voters have traditionally voted in very large numbers for parties here with very similar policies.  Why?  Because our conservative parties are just that - OUR conservative parties.  Scotland has always had solid conservative and centrist voting blocs.  Why wouldn't that be the case in an independent Scotland?

The conservative brand is toxic up here no doubt yet I totally agree with you on Scotlands politic.

I'd say the current SG lean slightly towards conservative policy.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

55 minutes ago, indianajones said:

 

 

I am the opposite to yourself. Was yes but now massively on the fence. 

 

 

Same here 

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Independence is clearly the most pressing issue.

 

It is. If we had control over drug laws we might be able to tackle that issue.

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Ked said:

Actually I'd argue that it is.

I really believe that the dependency to England has had an effect on the health of Scotland.

Of course there are many factors but although the current SG has a poor record on this let's be honest we have pre devolution and much further back had an abusive relationship with substance abuse.

Going back to @Ulyssespost earlier in the thread he says Ireland now is a much healthier nation.

I'm sure they had a similar problem to ours not with drugs maybe but alcohol.

The argument for me covers everything not just the monetary stuff.

I get where you are coming from but you cannot put everything on halt because of one problem as serious as that is.

I heard a debate about these figures, there's more to it. From memory, if I smoke a joint then get killed by a bear it would count as a drug related death. In one country though, I can't remember which, they only track people who die in hospital.

Having said that, every country needs to do more, a lot more.

[manaliveits105]

11 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

It is. If we had control over drug laws we might be able to tackle that issue.

 

rUK seem to handle it better 

[graygo]

19 minutes ago, Smithee said:

There are surely more independence supporters who don't vote SNP than unionists who do.

 

Surely anyone who wants independence will vote SNP if they go on a single ticket, presumably they vote green just now but if they truly want it then it doesn't make sense not to vote SNP this once. Conversely, I wouldn't expect any Unionists to vote SNP.

[Sarah O]

Waking up this morning, one day closer to independence. 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Sarah O

[Victorian]

Campaigning on the single issue is risky to others as well as the SNP.  It has the capacity to profoundly affect the outcome of the UK election result.  If a fairly significant number of people are anti-independence,  or who do not believe they want independence now,  then there's a good chance they will register tactical votes in order to deprive the SNP of the seat.  Tactical voting could well be hazardous for the Tories in a close run election.

 

Maybe the Tories might like to consider the benefit they enjoy via the SNP occupying many seats that may well be reclaimed by Labour.

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Campaigning on the single issue is risky to others as well as the SNP.  It has the capacity to profoundly affect the outcome of the UK election result.  If a fairly significant number of people are anti-independence,  or who do not believe they want independence now,  then there's a good chance they will register tactical votes in order to deprive the SNP of the seat.  Tactical voting could well be hazardous for the Tories in a close run election.

 

Maybe the Tories might like to consider the benefit they enjoy via the SNP occupying many seats that may well be reclaimed by Labour.

 

Tories must be strongly against tactical voting.

 

 

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/tactical-voting-guide-give-nats-26308671

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by graygo

[Malinga the Swinga]

It's good to see debate without it being dragged down by zealots on either side.

Amazing what ignore function can do to improve things.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Campaigning on the single issue is risky to others as well as the SNP.  It has the capacity to profoundly affect the outcome of the UK election result.  If a fairly significant number of people are anti-independence,  or who do not believe they want independence now,  then there's a good chance they will register tactical votes in order to deprive the SNP of the seat.  Tactical voting could well be hazardous for the Tories in a close run election.

 

Maybe the Tories might like to consider the benefit they enjoy via the SNP occupying many seats that may well be reclaimed by Labour.

Much what I was thinking, that the Conservatives and Labour parties will have too many plates spinning at once. Something will have to give, and their regional branch managers (Dross and Sarwar) will need to run everything by their English superiors.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Tories must be strongly against tactical voting.

 

Tories got backsides handed to them in the latest 2 by-elections. They should be wary of advocating it as that will be used against them in seats they consider as safe. They lost 24k majority in one seat because Libs/labour worked together.

[Victorian]

Just now, graygo said:

 

Tories must be strongly against tactical voting.

 

 

Indeed.  Only when it suits of course.  But they could conceivably be faced with the dilemma when the time comes.  Do they choose to continue to deny a referendum that they would probably win anyway at the risk of Labour reclaiming 15-20 Scottish seats that could make the difference in a general election.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Much what I was thinking, that the Conservatives and Labour parties will have too many plates spinning at once. Something will have to give, and their regional branch managers (Dross and Sarwar) will need to run everything by their English superiors.

 

 

It will certainly have them all considering election scenarios.

[JudyJudyJudy]

The best option is clearly section 30 is granted . Get it settled for a few good years or forever ( depending on which way the vote goes ) 

[Ray Gin]

17 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

rUK seem to handle it better 

 

Cool, let them crack on with what works for them and let Scotland crack on with what works for us.

 

[Ray Gin]

15 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

Waking up this morning, one day closer to independence. 

 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

The best option is clearly section 30 is granted . Get it settled for a few good years or forever ( depending on which way the vote goes ) 

Sadly, that won't happen. Should it be a No vote, an immediate campaign will start next day for new vote.

That will only not be case if it was overwhelming no vote.

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

The best option is clearly section 30 is granted . Get it settled for a few good years or forever ( depending on which way the vote goes ) 

Much as it pains me to agree with you I do in this instance. I wouldn't even be averse to the SNP agreeing not to have another for a period of time, say 25 years minimum. I suppose the difficulty is that there are some red lines that if crossed then independence might be necessary.

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Sadly, that won't happen. Should it be a No vote, an immediate campaign will start next day for new vote.

That will only not be case if it was overwhelming no vote.

They need to sack it for a few good years if it is a no . Far too much instability 

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

They need to sack it for a few good years if it is a no . Far too much instability 

 

Why should they though? Independence is their main aim. Maybe people should just stop voting for them, that would stop them.

[Lone Striker]

19 minutes ago, Ked said:

Actually I'd argue that it is.

I really believe that the dependency to England has had an effect on the health of Scotland.

Of course there are many factors but although the current SG has a poor record on this let's be honest we have pre devolution and much further back had an abusive relationship with substance abuse.

Going back to @Ulyssespost earlier in the thread he says Ireland now is a much healthier nation.

I'm sure they had a similar problem to ours not with drugs maybe but alcohol.

The argument for me covers everything not just the monetary stuff.

I get where you are coming from but you cannot put everything on halt because of one problem as serious as that is.

Is it not just one  example of how some SNP  policy sectors have failed to produce significant improvements after 11 years of being in charge of Scotland ?    Drug deaths isn't the only one.    Despite having new tax-raising powers, they've still opted to  cut real-terms funding to councils which in turn affects a huge number of people who rely on their services.    

 

So it basically comes down to how much voters blame the devolution process for it  (i.e. non-Indy)  rather than the  only major party who wants Indy.    

 

One thing that won't change much post-Indy is the competition between Scotland and England to attract new   business investment & jobs, and to  grow  the population of  residents paying tax to their tax authority.

 

 

[Victorian]

You could introduce a routine and recurring independence referendum to be conducted in tandem with every Holyrood election.  A separate voting paper on independence.  Only to be declared won by the independence movement in the event of a high bar being reached.  Maybe 2/3rds in favour.  It might be necessary to deem spoiled papers and no-shows as votes in favour in order to ensure that the anti-independence voters register their choice.  

[Boab]

48 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Campaigning on the single issue is risky to others as well as the SNP.  It has the capacity to profoundly affect the outcome of the UK election result.  If a fairly significant number of people are anti-independence,  or who do not believe they want independence now,  then there's a good chance they will register tactical votes in order to deprive the SNP of the seat.  Tactical voting could well be hazardous for the Tories in a close run election.

 

Maybe the Tories might like to consider the benefit they enjoy via the SNP occupying many seats that may well be reclaimed by Labour.

That kinda ties in with what Swinney said earlier. He was asked if a majority of seats would be a mandate and said yes. He had to then tweet that he meant yes to the majority of votes.

The Nats could well gain the same amount of seats as in the last GE but not secure a majority of votes if tactical voting was rife. 

Another risky strategy IMO.

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Sarah O said:

Waking up this morning, one day closer to independence. 

 

 

 

True

 

Also one day closer to death

[vegas-voss]

1 hour ago, The Maroon Pound said:

Is this not a general election issue? 

As in an independent Scotland I'm pretty sure the political parties will not agree on everything if anything and still have separate mandates to run the country 

I hate the way we are going with immigration as well.The laws that the Tories keep bringing in as well.Nothing feels right with me.As for when we are independent then I will base my decision who I vote for in my own country based on their policies.

[Mikey1874]

So it seems the General election vote will need to be over 50% to 'begin negotiations'.

 

Last elections SNP vote

 

2019 - 45% (a familiar figure)

2017 - 37%

2015 - 50%

2010 - 20%

 

 

[Unknown user]

52 minutes ago, graygo said:

Much as it pains me to agree with you I do in this instance. I wouldn't even be averse to the SNP agreeing not to have another for a period of time, say 25 years minimum. I suppose the difficulty is that there are some red lines that if crossed then independence might be necessary.

 

They can't make that promise, nor should they, the debate goes away when the debate goes away.

[JudyJudyJudy]

23 minutes ago, Boab said:

That kinda ties in with what Swinney said earlier. He was asked if a majority of seats would be a mandate and said yes. He had to then tweet that he meant yes to the majority of votes.

The Nats could well gain the same amount of seats as in the last GE but not secure a majority of votes if tactical voting was rife. 

Another risky strategy IMO.

Exactly what I was thinking . The other parties would clearly campaign on several issues but also no to Indy 

Edited June 29, 2022 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

True

 

Also one day closer to death

Are they both not the same thing 😂😂 just having a giggle 

[vegas-voss]

I do feel even though I would vote yes that if it turns out close like before but the other way round then I'm not sure it will be right as we will still be a very divided in what we believe country.Im not sure a simple 51% win really speaks for the country I think it should be a far bigger majority.We will just be at the same you don't speak for me chat that Indy/Brexit has brought up.

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

I hate the way we are going with immigration as well.The laws that the Tories keep bringing in as well.Nothing feels right with me.As for when we are independent then I will base my decision who I vote for in my own country based on their policies.

 

Immigration is a curious issue.

 

There are the headlines and overall stats and then the reality on the ground.

 

Actually in many ways the UK has an open, generous immigration system. I can say that because I come across many immigrants in different situations through my work. Which is actually the problem the Government in trying to throw about red meat to its supporters. Its very hard to stop it albeit UK figures is below many similar countries. 

 

It would equally be a challenge in Scotland though it's likely a little more openness would take place. 

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, vegas-voss said:

I do feel even though I would vote yes that if it turns out close like before but the other way round then I'm not sure it will be right as we will still be a very divided in what we believe country.Im not sure a simple 51% win really speaks for the country I think it should be a far bigger majority.We will just be at the same you don't speak for me chat that Indy/Brexit has brought up.

We could always seek a reunion, if the conversation continues so be it, that's democracy.

[vegas-voss]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Immigration is a curious issue.

 

There are the headlines and overall stats and then the reality on the ground.

 

Actually in many ways the UK has an open, generous immigration system. I can say that because I come across many immigrants in different situations through my work. Which is actually the problem the Government in trying to throw about red meat to its supporters. Its very hard to stop it albeit UK figures is below many similar countries. 

 

It would equally be a challenge in Scotland though it's likely a little more openness would take place. 

There are many many challenges that need to be overcome of that there is no doubt.