When will indyref2 happen?

[Antlion]

2 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Side splitting as ever...are you 'here all week', and should I try the fish'?

 

[Guest Jedi]

Seem to be agreed then that both Westminster and Holyrood have sh*ite voting systems, as (funnily enough) there is no 'perfect' way to conduct elections that doesn't tip the odds of winning towards one party once they reach a % threshold.

Just that Westminster's way of doing it is shi*ier and with Holyrood we get to wave our own fleg.

[Antlion]

2 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Seem to be agreed then that both Westminster and Holyrood have sh*ite voting systems, as (funnily enough) there is no 'perfect' way to conduct elections that doesn't tip the odds of winning towards one party once they reach a % threshold.

Just that Westminster's way of doing it is shi*ier and with Holyrood we get to wave our own fleg.

Nope, that’s not agreed at all.

[DublinMagyar]

I'm not saying its 'okay' for either....what I wouldn't want to see is an Independent Scotland simply making the same fiscal choices as Westminster (under the Tories) does.
In 2014 there was so much energy in the Yes campaign because it contained a variety of voices as to what the country could look like.
I don't disagree that Independence isn't just about the SNP (and it shouldn't be),..or indeed that you can 'vote for whoever you like in an iScotland),.... but over the past few years it has moved much more in their direction, and I don't hear many competing narratives now from more working class orientated groups. 
For Yes to win, I still reckon that it needs to become much broader and engage with these movements again. So many people were energized not just by Independence, but by politics in 2014, which was brilliant. That was as a result of feeling like they could hear from different views of what Independence could mean, and taking part in community groups up and down the country.
If the SNP set out the kind of prospectus, which they have adopted under the current leadership (not the 2014 version), I fear that, if there is a Ref next year, that it could result in a narrow No win, and that I think quite honestly would be both a great shame and a massive opportunity missed to really start to shape Scotland as a nation which can make different, and better choices than Westminster. As long as the fiscal outlooks of either London or Edinburgh aren't that different, you are only swapping 'dependence' on one hand, to see the same sort of policies as before implemented.

And WTF are Scottish Labour offering to bring to the table in an independent Scotland?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

2 hours ago, Jedi said:

Unfortunately (or fortunately) whichever way you look at it, the pattern of politics in Scotland since the 1950s has been to effectively have a one party state.

From the late 50s through to 2011 that was Labour-pretty much for 50 years. During that period the SNP were small electorally in terms of vote share and seats.(at Westminster traditionally returning 3 or 4 seats)

Now that has been completely reversed since really 2011 and the first SNP landslide in a Scottish election. With their having been in power now for 15 years, it difficult to see that changing for a long, long time. Reason being that there is an in-built 40-45% of the vote which is guaranteed to go to the SNP because of Independence..that share automatically gains by far the most seats. You could argue that maybe the opposition is just rubbish (and in Scotland, they haven't been good since 2011), but because of the pattern of Scottish politics, when you look at Labour dominance for 50 years, and now the SNP, 15 years already and many more to go (the next Scottish election being a formality for them)...Labour will never really recover in Scotland because they were part of the No campaign in 2014.

Its actually ironic that Westminster does change governments in less time periods than Scotland. Yes, the Tories have clearly won the most elections but if you look at

1979-97 Tories for 18 years

97-2010 Labour for 13

2010-22 Tories for 12 (and now likely to change again)

The 'turnover' is quite different to Scottish politics.

So, with that (continuing 40-45% of voters) which I can't see changing post-Indy for a very long stretch, it will most certainly be the SNP who dominate an Independent Scotland for a good while.

Something happening once is not a pattern, thats absolutely not what a pattern is. 

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

Seem to be agreed then that both Westminster and Holyrood have sh*ite voting systems, as (funnily enough) there is no 'perfect' way to conduct elections that doesn't tip the odds of winning towards one party once they reach a % threshold.

Just that Westminster's way of doing it is shi*ier and with Holyrood we get to wave our own fleg.

Also holyroods voting system is actually the best one ive seen implemented anywhere. 

[Kenneth840]

On 17/10/2022 at 14:38, SandyCromarty said:

Correct and that's been outlined by Nicola today, an Independent Scotland would also have to demostrate fiscal prudence and a thriving market economy before being accepted by the EU, it's all in teh Copenahgen Criteria.

If the likes of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia etc with little Russian investment prior totheir Independence can gain membership then Scotland with a GDP of 160 Billion (excluding oil), and massive natural resources should waltz into the EU.

The average EU acceptance time for the countries mentioned was circa 6 years, with our resources and the chance for the EU to piss on Brexit I would think our wait would be half that.

Where does the SNIB money go to though?  Who has received it?

[Kenneth840]

On 15/10/2022 at 17:53, GTG_03 said:

I agree but isn't using the pound only temporary until we set up our own currency. The pound will lose value when we leave anyway. 

Yes, it should be temporary, during the negotiation period.  

Just as you say, the pound will lose value when we leave, so why are we going to be using sterling? 

[SandyCromarty]

Just now, Kenneth840 said:

Where does the SNIB money go to though?  Who has received it?

Go to Investment Portfolio | Scottish National Investment Bank (thebank.scot)

£276 Million invested so far in Scottish Projects.

[sophia]

3 hours ago, Jedi said:

That is a really good question, and one which they do need to clarify.

Presumably, the SNP would handle negotiations with Westminster, as they would still have a majority in Holyrood.

Do they then call an election with the aim being that the 'first' govt of an Independent Scotland (almost certainly the self same SNP) then get to implement their programme of what Indy should look like (for 5 years at least).

So, its probably fair to say that both the negotiation period, and also the first 5 year govt would be the SNP's programme based (at the moment) on Building Scotland's Future document.

After the first 5 years...? who knows that would be up to the electorate. Will they simply put the SNP back in, or is there an alternative party by that stage.

The SNP will do nothing of the sort and I wish contributors would cease and desist with this ill informed narrative.

The democratically elected Scottish Government (presently a coalition because guess what, the SNP don't have a majority) will handle negotiations thank you very much.

Actually I think you're being disingenuous in juxtaposing SNP with Westminster. By all means use ...

• Holyrood / Westminster
• Edinburgh / London 
• SNP / Tory 
• Scottish Government / rUK Government
• Scotland / England if you must

... but why use SNP / Westminster?

 

[Kenneth840]

The economic paper that was released on Monday and not at conference is disastrous.  Clearly the SNP are not listening to their members, the members that have told them that sterlingisation is not the way forward in an Independent Scotland.  

This is painful reading. https://jonathonshafi.substack.com/p/the-currency-capitulation

“I don’t understand why the Scots should leave the UK and remain with respect to monetary policy subject to what would then be a perfect dictatorship of the Bank of England. In monetary terms Scotland would practically remain part of the UK, without any representation in the UK parliament. One would wonder why a nationalist political party in its right mind should take the risk and expend the enormous amount of political capital needed to win another popular vote on Scottish sovereignty.”

Why would we?

 

“If independence has become what feels like a single issue campaign for EU membership, there should be a rock solid plan for entering the EU upon independence. Yet, remarkably, the Growth Commission, talked up as the negotiating position following a Yes vote, would inhibit EU membership because the proposal for Sterlingisation with the UK would leave Scotland without monetary policy autonomy, as the Growth Commission report admits.”

“I think this paper lays out a policy that would be disastrous for Scotland. It could even crush it. As a result, I doubt the conviction of those who wrote it about independence. Do they really want it, I wonder? It’s that bad.

“Without using a Scottish currency Scotland cannot join the EU, and a whole section of the report is dedicated to joining it without ever mentioning the pre-condition that the Scottish currency must be in use first of all.”

When pressed on this, the First Minister can only offer sleight of hand. She says that, despite the need for an independent central bank, Scotland could still apply for EU membership. Sure. But I could apply to be the Chief Medical Officer. Unless I can show the relevant qualifications, it is a futile act.

Who are we paying? Are they on our side?

Then we get the investment programme. This is going to create an ‘oil fund’ of £20 billion (that’ll be the oil money spent again). But then the capital investment over the first decade is going to be funded by oil (that’s it spent three times). In reality there is no oil fund, it is revenue spending. In fact it later admits that oil revenue is only £1.5 billion a year so it will borrow the rest.

Which means that as best I can tell from what information is in this, Scotland is going to get through the first ten years of independence by borrowing only £5 billion. That doesn’t include borrowing to fund deficits, but we’re not told anything about that in the fiscal section.

https://robinmcalpine.org/this-paper-answers-nothing-this-government-has-no-answers/

I’m worn out pointing out that almost no western European country survived Covid without Quantitative Easing or a bailout from the IMF. What would have happened during the recent Sterling crash? There is just no serious information in this section, but lots of words. Scotland the country has no lender of last resort under SNP plans, only its banks.

Where this degenerates from obfuscation to comedy is when its investment programme is mentioned. This is going to be an investment programme of £20 billion and its list of what its going to do with that money is stupendous. I mean really enormous. As in many, many, many times bigger than the money they are going to spend on it.

Where is the rest of the investment coming from? It doesn’t say ‘privatise everything’ – but then it doesn’t say ‘austerity’ either and we seem to be getting that.

It then takes all the criticisms of the Growth Commission and makes them go away by assuming that you don’t know what monetary policy means, or will fall for their ‘its a central bank, honestly’ line. It has Scotland rejoining the EU through the power of wishing for it very hard, doesn’t really have any solution for the border and proposes that Scotland basically stops investing in itself for a decade.

You can pick your reason for getting off this mad, mad bus. It could be because you think a government should have some form of lender of last resort to save it in a crisis. It could be because you’re not keen on austerity. It could even be that you’re not keen on not being told how much austerity is proposed.

It might might be because you realise they have no economic plan for Scotland. It could be because you believe climate change is real and that we need to invest more than one per cent of GDP in it over the next decade. It might be because they’ve failed to come up with any answers for trade or borders.

Or it could be because the whole thing is utter pish. Pick your reason, but for god sake get off this mad, mad bus.

 

 

 

 

 

[Granny Danger]

14 minutes ago, sophia said:

The SNP will do nothing of the sort and I wish contributors would cease and desist with this ill informed narrative.

The democratically elected Scottish Government (presently a coalition because guess what, the SNP don't have a majority) will handle negotiations thank you very much.

Actually I think you're being disingenuous in juxtaposing SNP with Westminster. By all means use ...

• Holyrood / Westminster
• Edinburgh / London 
• SNP / Tory 
• Scottish Government / rUK Government
• Scotland / England if you must

... but why use SNP / Westminster?

 

I’d go further and say the SNP itself is a coalition.  People who share an overriding common goal but will have differing views on the implementation of it.  I think that will strengthen rather than weaken the outcome of negotiations.

[Guest Jedi]

A 'coalition' it may be....but in name only....lets be honest about this...the SNP were just 1 seat short of an overall majority in the 2021 election. in 2016, 2 seats short, and in 2011 had a majority. After their 64 seats in 2021, the next largest number of seats are the Tories, way back on 31. Sturgeon also said that she was happy to govern with the largest majority of seats but that overall it would 'preferable to get that (single) extra seat required from the Greens.

And, the 'great variety' of voices of the Scottish Government will negotiate Independence....so in other words 64 SNP and 8 Green....great 'balance'.

A 'coalition'..aye the Greens are so critical of the SNP.-even handing contracts to noted environmentalists  BP and Shell recently to keep their 'partners' happy

Being that far ahead means that the SNP 'dominate' Scottish politics, with or without PR. I will replace 'one party state' with dominate there then. 

Again, there is no prospect of that changing for a very very long time......which delights SNP supporters, naturally enough......In the 2040s the SNP will be saying...'Labour...stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in 2014', exactly the same as Tories of today say 'Gordon Brown....crashed the UK economy', or Labour supporters (used) to say 'SNP....let Thatcher in by voting down a Labour government'

 

The SNP a 'coalition' of views.....where the hierarchy ignore motions they don't like or doesnt suit them at Conference (aye the same as Labour)..whether on sterling or using tax powers to help with cost of living...the members or (other) voices will really get a say in what Independence looks like.

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Jedi

[Guest Jedi]

@Kenneth840 Don't worry Jonathon Shafi will be dismissed as a Slab moon howler, and the German Economist Wolfgang Streek and Professor Economics Richard Murphy, who also comment there as 'knowing nothing about politics'. Even Patrick Harvie doesn't like it, and when your main cheerleader is agin it there is something wrong.

It will all sort itself out in 'a few years though'

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Jedi

[sophia]

12 minutes ago, Jedi said:

A 'coalition' it may be....but in name only....lets be honest about this...the SNP were just 1 seat short of an overall majority in the 2021 election. in 2016, 2 seats short, and in 2011 had a majority. After their 64 seats in 2021, the next largest number of seats are the Tories, way back on 31. Sturgeon also said that she was happy to govern with the largest majority of seats but that overall it would 'preferable to get that (single) extra seat required from the Greens.

And, the 'great variety' of voices of the Scottish Government will negotiate Independence....so in other words 64 SNP and 8 Green....great 'balance'.

A 'coalition'..aye the Greens are so critical of the SNP.-even handing contracts to noted environmentalists  BP and Shell recently to keep their 'partners' happy

Being that far ahead means that the SNP 'dominate' Scottish politics, with or without PR. I will replace 'one party state' with dominate there then. 

Again, there is no prospect of that changing for a very very long time......which delights SNP supporters, naturally enough......In the 2040s the SNP will be saying...'Labour...stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in 2014', exactly the same as Tories of today say 'Gordon Brown....crashed the UK economy', or Labour supporters (used) to say 'SNP....let Thatcher in by voting down a Labour government'

 

The SNP a 'coalition' of views.....where the hierarchy ignore motions they don't like or doesnt suit them at Conference (aye the same as Labour)...the members or (other) voices will really get a say in what Independence looks like.

 

If you are interested in debate, have the good grace to quote please. It really isn't all that difficult.

Unless of course, you don't want to debate and instead favour diatribe.

 

You may recall Donald Dewar acting in the national interest and ensuring we have a best practice voting system.

He did this against his party interest.

You may remember that it was a given that the red vote would prevail, at least across certain regions and he was determined to ameliorate this for the betterment of us all. Nicola is cut from the same cloth.

Persist with your partisan proclamations if you must but be aware that the rhythm of your contributions are increasingly discordant.

[git-intae-thum]

4 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Can anyone give me an example of a one party state. Anyone? Anyone? 

The UK is probably as good an example of a "one party state" as any in Western Europe.

Solidly Tory (mainly blue but with a wee bit of the red variety) since 1979.

[git-intae-thum]

53 minutes ago, Jedi said:

A 'coalition' it may be....but in name only....lets be honest about this...the SNP were just 1 seat short of an overall majority in the 2021 election. in 2016, 2 seats short, and in 2011 had a majority. After their 64 seats in 2021, the next largest number of seats are the Tories, way back on 31. Sturgeon also said that she was happy to govern with the largest majority of seats but that overall it would 'preferable to get that (single) extra seat required from the Greens.

And, the 'great variety' of voices of the Scottish Government will negotiate Independence....so in other words 64 SNP and 8 Green....great 'balance'.

A 'coalition'..aye the Greens are so critical of the SNP.-even handing contracts to noted environmentalists  BP and Shell recently to keep their 'partners' happy

Being that far ahead means that the SNP 'dominate' Scottish politics, with or without PR. I will replace 'one party state' with dominate there then. 

Again, there is no prospect of that changing for a very very long time......which delights SNP supporters, naturally enough......In the 2040s the SNP will be saying...'Labour...stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in 2014', exactly the same as Tories of today say 'Gordon Brown....crashed the UK economy', or Labour supporters (used) to say 'SNP....let Thatcher in by voting down a Labour government'

 

The SNP a 'coalition' of views.....where the hierarchy ignore motions they don't like or doesnt suit them at Conference (aye the same as Labour)..whether on sterling or using tax powers to help with cost of living...the members or (other) voices will really get a say in what Independence looks like.

 

This assumes the SNP will remain intact post independence. Given it is effectively a collective of political and economic views that is united by one major issue, I find it unlikely it will last any significant period after the resolution of that issue.

I would also suggest many SNP voters vote for them just now as they are the only realistic current means to achieve independence. Once that is achieved who knows where their vote would go.

Presumably though much of an SNP legacy vote would go to a social democrat party, therefore making progressive socially democratic government in Scotland in a distinct possibility. 

It is the tragedy of labour in Scotland that their leadership has placed a higher priority on pursuing a policy of tory-lite UK nationalism.

 

[Guest Jedi]

As opposed to Tory-lite Scottish nationalism, as the SNP continue to keep their corporate, big business backers happy, while ignoring policies which might benefit a wider group of people outside the middle class.

[git-intae-thum]

1 minute ago, Jedi said:

As opposed to Tory-lite Scottish nationalism, as the SNP continue to keep their corporate, big business backers happy, while ignoring policies which might benefit a wider group of people outside the middle class.

And independence is the only opportunity to change that.

[Guest Jedi]

7 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

And independence is the only opportunity to change that.

By handing the Tory-lite SNP the keys to the kingdom? to enact their said austerity aiming, low tax, big business agenda?

[Guest]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63290675

Last woman to speak in that clip:

"We don't own our wind power. France owns our wind power. We don't own our power and never have. We don't own our hospitals, we don't own our schools, it's all private finance and so, will that change if we leave?".

I'd hope so. Personally, I'd want Evo Morales-style nationalisations. I appreciate that'd be harder to do here, deep in the imperial core, than in Bolivia but it needs attempted. Such moves would make EU accession far less likely but so be it.

Edited October 21, 2022 by FreedomFarter