When will indyref2 happen?

[G51]

I think the folk from the Central Belt need to understand that this is nothing to do with some covert plan to remain in the UK (how would that even work anyway), and everything to do with devolving powers away from Holyrood and London and into the hands of local communities, who feel that both Parliaments are out of touch with these areas.

If/when an independent Scotland happens (an inevitability in my opinion, and something I'd favour), you're going to have a situation where the Central Belt becomes dominant over the rest of the country. Of Scotlands 5.5m population, 3.5m live in the Central Belt. Every policy made will be tailored for the Central Belt, just like it currently is. And that's fine - if you live there.

This is not unique to Scotland either. Ireland makes decisions that disproportionately benefit the Greater Dublin area, hence the huge increase in wealth for people who live there. England does the same with London.

But in Scotland, the Highlands is rich in the resources that will matter over the next Century - water, land and clean energy. The majority of clean energy produced in Scotland is produced in this region. This is somewhere that should be thriving. And yet these communities watch as powers are actually taken *away* from them by Westminster and Holyrood. If rural communities are to survive then they need to be able to make themselves attractive to incomers and the people raised there, and right now they aren't. All the power is in Holyrood and London, and soon it'll all be in Holyrood.

Fundamentally, this is what the move by SIC is all about - to try and regain some of these powers and put them in the hands of local communities. And if Holyrood / the Central Belt refuses to devolve power, then they'll be left with no choice but to campaign and win independence.

[NotThePars]

This is all a moot point as when I manoeuvre myself into the post-indy government with a Minister of the Regions remit I will be taking a Stalinist approach and cutting off any further devolution or secessionism at the knees.

[Gordon EF]

12 minutes ago, G51 said:

I think the folk from the Central Belt need to understand that this is nothing to do with some covert plan to remain in the UK (how would that even work anyway), and everything to do with devolving powers away from Holyrood and London and into the hands of local communities, who feel that both Parliaments are out of touch with these areas.

If/when an independent Scotland happens (an inevitability in my opinion, and something I'd favour), you're going to have a situation where the Central Belt becomes dominant over the rest of the country. Of Scotlands 5.5m population, 3.5m live in the Central Belt. Every policy made will be tailored for the Central Belt, just like it currently is. And that's fine - if you live there.

This is not unique to Scotland either. Ireland makes decisions that disproportionately benefit the Greater Dublin area, hence the huge increase in wealth for people who live there. England does the same with London.

But in Scotland, the Highlands is rich in the resources that will matter over the next Century - water, land and clean energy. The majority of clean energy produced in Scotland is produced in this region. This is somewhere that should be thriving. And yet these communities watch as powers are actually taken *away* from them by Westminster and Holyrood. If rural communities are to survive then they need to be able to make themselves attractive to incomers and the people raised there, and right now they aren't. All the power is in Holyrood and London, and soon it'll all be in Holyrood.

Fundamentally, this is what the move by SIC is all about - to try and regain some of these powers and put them in the hands of local communities. And if Holyrood / the Central Belt refuses to devolve power, then they'll be left with no choice but to campaign and win independence.

I'd agree with all of that. I think what some folk take issue with is the whole whole unionist "Aye but if Scotland get's independence, Shetland will just leave". I haven't seen one indpendence supporter who has a problem with more local autonomy or for the people who live on Shetland, for example, to decide what they do constitutionally.

I don't think anyone's ideal scenario for an independent Scotland is some kind of Central Belt tyranny, given that having power closer to the people it effects is one of the main reasons people support independence. Of course it's difficult to avoid the impression that the vast majority of funds will got to the Central Belt because, frankly, they always will. But I think most independence supporters will be accutely aware that it's very important to distribute power and funding fairly and proportionately to areas that are maybe further away from the big population centres.

[G51]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

I'd agree with all of that. I think what some folk take issue with is the whole whole unionist "Aye but if Scotland get's independence, Shetland will just leave". I haven't seen one indpendence supporter who has a problem with more local autonomy or for the people who live on Shetland, for example, to decide what they do constitutionally.

I don't think anyone's ideal scenario for an independent Scotland is some kind of Central Belt tyranny, given that having power closer to the people it effects is one of the main reasons people support independence. Of course it's difficult to avoid the impression that the vast majority of funds will got to the Central Belt because, frankly, they always will. But I think most independence supporters will be accutely aware that it's very important to distribute power and funding fairly and proportionately to areas that are maybe further away from the big population centres.

The problem people have is that the SNP have not shown any inclination towards devolving powers to other regions, and instead have continued to centralise power in Edinburgh. The common retort to this is "Aye, but the SNP may not be in power in an independent Scotland" - but this is the same logic that unionists use about the Tories. There's no party capable of dethroning the SNP in Scotland at the minute, and it doesn't look like there will be for the foreseeable either. So we have to work on the basis that it will be the SNP in power when Scotland becomes independent.

This will all form part of the discussion of what a post-independent Scotland looks like. As part of that discussion, don't be surprised if you start to see more areas following SIC's lead to try and leverage the SNP. It's up to them how they respond, but trying another stunt like the Islands Act isn't going to cut it and will see these places turning the SNP's own arguments against them.

[speckled tangerine]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

The problem people have is that the SNP have not shown any inclination towards devolving powers to other regions, and instead have continued to centralise power in Edinburgh. The common retort to this is "Aye, but the SNP may not be in power in an independent Scotland" - but this is the same logic that unionists use about the Tories. There's no party capable of dethroning the SNP in Scotland at the minute, and it doesn't look like there will be for the foreseeable either. So we have to work on the basis that it will be the SNP in power when Scotland becomes independent.

This will all form part of the discussion of what a post-independent Scotland looks like. As part of that discussion, don't be surprised if you start to see more areas following SIC's lead to try and leverage the SNP. It's up to them how they respond, but trying another stunt like the Islands Act isn't going to cut it and will see these places turning the SNP's own arguments against them.

The SNP will absolutely fragment/fold after independence. It may be some sort of caretaker immediately after indy, but there will be elections within a year and I'd imagine new parties will emerge along left/centre/right lines.

[G51]

1 minute ago, speckled tangerine said:

The SNP will absolutely fragment/fold after independence. It may be some sort of caretaker immediately after indy, but there will be elections within a year and I'd imagine new parties will emerge along left/centre/right lines.

Why on Earth would the SNP fold when there isn't another party in Scotland that can come near them right now?

[BawWatchin]

12 minutes ago, G51 said:

The problem people have is that the SNP have not shown any inclination towards devolving powers to other regions, and instead have continued to centralise power in Edinburgh. The common retort to this is "Aye, but the SNP may not be in power in an independent Scotland" - but this is the same logic that unionists use about the Tories. There's no party capable of dethroning the SNP in Scotland at the minute, and it doesn't look like there will be for the foreseeable either. So we have to work on the basis that it will be the SNP in power when Scotland becomes independent.

This will all form part of the discussion of what a post-independent Scotland looks like. As part of that discussion, don't be surprised if you start to see more areas following SIC's lead to try and leverage the SNP. It's up to them how they respond, but trying another stunt like the Islands Act isn't going to cut it and will see these places turning the SNP's own arguments against them.

If things are so shite under the SNP after independence, then why would people living in Scotland keep voting for them?

[speckled tangerine]

4 minutes ago, G51 said:

Why on Earth would the SNP fold when there isn't another party in Scotland that can come near them right now?

Job done. The left and right have a common aim- independence. After that there's too many ideologically opposed positions to maintain a common theme.

[G51]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

If things are so shite under the SNP after independence, then why would people living in Scotland keep voting for them?

Because as I said, policy will be tailored for the 3.5m people living in the Central Belt, out of the 5.5m population. Much like policy is tailored in the UK for the 56m people living in England, out of the 66m people in the UK.

[BawWatchin]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

Because as I said, policy will be tailored for the 3.5m people living in the Central Belt, out of the 5.5m population. Much like policy is tailored in the UK for the 56m people living in England, out of the 66m people in the UK.

Well yes, they'll continue to pander to the majority, as it's the majority that gets them elected. The only political parties that don't pander to the majority are the one's that never get elected.

[G51]

3 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Well yes, they'll continue to pander to the majority, as it's the majority that gets them elected. The only political parties that don't pander to the majority are the one's that never get elected.

Correct. So policy will always be tailored for the Central Belt to the detriment of other regions. Hence why those regions are looking / will look for devolution of power to make their own decisions.

[BawWatchin]

9 minutes ago, G51 said:

Correct. So policy will always be tailored for the Central Belt to the detriment of other regions. Hence why those regions are looking / will look for devolution of power to make their own decisions.

Of course they will. But unless they can enforce some kind of change in central government, the party of central government will be hesitant to devolve powers to local administrations. Especially if they don't trust the parties running those local administrations to use those powers correctly and not simply as a political tool to gain political capital.

[G51]

5 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Because there's one reason the SNP is hegemonic today that will not be there after independence.

I don't really buy the idea that there are folk within or vote for the SNP, a party that sits squarely in the centre in a country that sits squarely in the centre, who cannot stomach the way they govern and are desperate to quit/stop as soon as independence is achieved. It's not a particularly broad coalition of voices.

There's nothing credible to suggest that there are any splits within the SNP outside of the GRA stuff, which is only pursued by a few nutters. Therefore there's nothing to suggest that they wouldn't win a post-indy election.

 

[G51]

6 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Of course they will. But unless they can enforce some kind of change in central government, the party of central government will be hesitant to devolve powers to local administrations. Especially if they don't trust the parties running those local administrations to use those powers correctly and not simply as a political tool to gain political capital.

Interested to hear what the bit in bold means.

And I'm touched that a Holyrood government wouldn't want to devolve power to the Highlands & Islands in case the people there didn't know how to use them properly. It's complicated stuff you know. Although some might say that being called "too wee, too stupid" isn't all that much of a compliment...

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

1 hour ago, G51 said:

I think the folk from the Central Belt need to understand that this is nothing to do with some covert plan to remain in the UK (how would that even work anyway), and everything to do with devolving powers away from Holyrood and London and into the hands of local communities, who feel that both Parliaments are out of touch with these areas.

If/when an independent Scotland happens (an inevitability in my opinion, and something I'd favour), you're going to have a situation where the Central Belt becomes dominant over the rest of the country. Of Scotlands 5.5m population, 3.5m live in the Central Belt. Every policy made will be tailored for the Central Belt, just like it currently is. And that's fine - if you live there.

This is not unique to Scotland either. Ireland makes decisions that disproportionately benefit the Greater Dublin area, hence the huge increase in wealth for people who live there. England does the same with London.

But in Scotland, the Highlands is rich in the resources that will matter over the next Century - water, land and clean energy. The majority of clean energy produced in Scotland is produced in this region. This is somewhere that should be thriving. And yet these communities watch as powers are actually taken *away* from them by Westminster and Holyrood. If rural communities are to survive then they need to be able to make themselves attractive to incomers and the people raised there, and right now they aren't. All the power is in Holyrood and London, and soon it'll all be in Holyrood.

Fundamentally, this is what the move by SIC is all about - to try and regain some of these powers and put them in the hands of local communities. And if Holyrood / the Central Belt refuses to devolve power, then they'll be left with no choice but to campaign and win independence.

You keeping on flogging a dead dog.  This seems obvious to everyone apart from you. 

There is NO support for Shetland, Orkney or anywhere else to become independent. A few uber-Yoons with a handful of support, is not a 'campaign'. 

As has been pointed out....and actually a point of view you seem to have moved towards, before contradicting yourself....there is support, from all parties, for more devolved powers to the highlands and islands come independence. 

I hope this is clear to you now. 

 

[G51]

5 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Environmental care vs development at all costs (Wheelhouse vs Ewing)

Land reform vs keeping the rich happy & landed (Lochhead vs Ewing/Wilson)

Social democracy vs centrism (Black vs Blackford)

Out the EU vs in the EU (Neil vs everyone)

Off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more. These tensions are all kept in check because of the single overriding goal. Of course these groups will hive off. This is particularly the case if, as we should, Scotland elected its politicians by PR.

I'm not sure any of these are serious enough to split a party (the EU issue aside, but as you note that's pretty one-sided)

In any case, would it make a difference if the party elected in their place was Labour or the Tories, or (more likely) a coalition of two of the three?

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

This is all a moot point as when I manoeuvre myself into the post-indy government with a Minister of the Regions remit I will be taking a Stalinist approach and cutting off any further devolution or secessionism at the knees.

Executing the organizers of up helly aa for sedition and imposing central belt culture on these heathens.

[BawWatchin]

10 minutes ago, G51 said:

Interested to hear what the bit in bold means.

Well you just have to look at some of the powers that are already devolved to local authorities and how local authority funding has been deliberately misspent by opposing parties while they claim they're not getting enough funding from central government for the things that actually matter.

 

[G51]

3 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

You keeping on flogging a dead dog.  This seems obvious to everyone apart from you. 

There is NO support for Shetland, Orkney or anywhere else to become independent. A few uber-Yoons with a handful of support, is not a 'campaign'. 

As has been pointed out....and actually a point of view you seem to have moved towards, before contradicting yourself....there is support, from all parties, for more devolved powers to the highlands and islands come independence. 

I hope this is clear to you now. 

 

The Shetland Islands Council is a handful of uber-Yoons? Interesting assessment.

If you can point me to anywhere showing mainstream party policy for further devolution towards the regions, it would be much appreciated. It would certainly be a U-turn on their actual actions over the last few decades.

[G51]

2 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Executing the organizers of up helly aa for sedition and imposing central belt culture on these heathens.

Oh please, the Central Belt has no culture.

Well, except sectarianism.