No Voters - what say you?

[Suspect Device]

4 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Speaking as someone who voted Yes in 2014, I can also appreciate that people have seen what ‘change’ looks like with Brexit, so alarm bells will be ringing.

Also, the Scottish Government haven’t exactly been an exemplar off good governance in recent years, so putting more trust in them is a stretch.

The change with brexit didn't need to be so drastic if the British government hadn't been  so stupid (or just xenophobic) and kept the free trade and movement of people. The situation in northern ireland is testament to that. Their economy isn't suffering as much as the rest of Britain because they still have easier access to the EU market. 

I'm hoping that whatever solution is found to get around the Irish sea border problems will also benefit  us when it comes to negotiating the settlement (if we get a vote and if we win the vote)

[Michael W]

Northern Ireland isn't a helpful example for Scotland at all. 

The EU made an exception for Northern Ireland because it had to due to the GFA. The possible consequences of Brexit also presented fundamental difficulties to an EU Member State, under the terms of said agreement and also as a result of the 'all Island' economy. 

You can also see from what was eventually agreed was unsurprisingly heavily geared towards EU trade and not trade with a third country (I.e. the UK). This was the price of a soft border. I still find it incredible the agreement was signed despite the clearly detrimental consequences for intra-UK trade, but I guess I wasn't desperate enough to "get it done" and then spend all eternity moaning about my own actions. 

Scottish independence does not carry potentially negative consequences to any EU Member State. It will impact and disrupt trade with the rest of the UK, but that's not the EU's problem or concern. The extent of disruption will of course depend on the UK's trading relationship with the EU, in which case we either accept the current state of them as the future state of play or launch into any number of hypothetical scenarios.

[GAD]

The idea that there is no risk in staying in the union, therefore no case to be made for it, is wrong. Since 2014, when we voted No, we have been taken out of the EU, the currency has tanked, wages have stagnated, we've had multiple general elections, have a hard right populist government with a huge majority of power based on a minority vote, who have basically promised to rip up the current laws protecting our human rights and are making laws to suppress dissent. Beyond that though they are pretty much incapable of governing and are making up policy on the hoof depending on the morning's headlines. The cost of living crisis is only just getting started, and already, in real terms, most people are poorer than they were in 2014.

The last 6 years or so have not been stable, they have not been good to the normal working people of the UK. It's been chaos, with no real indication that it's likely to change in the near future. Yeah, Brexit has been a complete disaster, but mostly because the UK government has made it so. To suggest no case has to be made to stay in this disaster as it is just now is crazy. The current dysfunctional state of the UK is a massive point in favour of independence and it will need to be addressed.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

18 minutes ago, GAD said:

The idea that there is no risk in staying in the union, therefore no case to be made for it, is wrong. Since 2014, when we voted No, we have been taken out of the EU, the currency has tanked, wages have stagnated, we've had multiple general elections, have a hard right populist government with a huge majority of power based on a minority vote, who have basically promised to rip up the current laws protecting our human rights and are making laws to suppress dissent. Beyond that though they are pretty much incapable of governing and are making up policy on the hoof depending on the morning's headlines. The cost of living crisis is only just getting started, and already, in real terms, most people are poorer than they were in 2014.

The last 6 years or so have not been stable, they have not been good to the normal working people of the UK. It's been chaos, with no real indication that it's likely to change in the near future. Yeah, Brexit has been a complete disaster, but mostly because the UK government has made it so. To suggest no case has to be made to stay in this disaster as it is just now is crazy. The current dysfunctional state of the UK is a massive point in favour of independence and it will need to be addressed.

Not really. 

You've listed your perceived grievances with the UK which is fair enough, you now need to further this post and address why each gripe you have would be improved under an Independent Scotland. 

You've mentioned economic arguments, can you make a case that under an Independent Scotland wages would increase, the economy would perform better, we would rejoin the EU? If you can't then those issues you've raised yourself aren't answered by blindly leaving the UK. It's hardly a good sales pitch to say, here these things are all shite, let's potentially make them 10 x worse with the added bonus of a decade of austerity and a hard border with our biggest trading partner...

You've also rightly said Brexit would be a disaster but until you can provide alternatives you're basically advocating further disaster without anything positive on offer. At this point in time leaving the UK would leave Scotland out of the EU and the UK for the foreseeable future. Your argument seems to be Brexit was shit let's now do it again but with Scotland...

Saying the UK is dysfunctional let's potentially have more dysfunction isn't a convincing strategy, you're basically just doubling down on your already entrenched position, which will go well in an echo chamber but does absolutely nothing to convince anyone that's not moved by soundbites. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[GAD]

 

29 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Not really. 

You've listed your perceived grievances with the UK which is fair enough, you now need to further this post and address why each gripe you have would be improved under an Independent Scotland. 

You've mentioned economic arguments, can you make a case that under an Independent Scotland wages would increase, the economy would perform better, we would rejoin the EU? If you can't then those issues you've raised yourself aren't answered by blindly leaving the UK. It's hardly a good sales pitch to say, here these things are all shite, let's potentially make them 10 x worse with the added bonus of a decade of austerity and a hard border with our biggest trading partner...

You've also rightly said Brexit would be a disaster but until you can provide alternatives you're basically advocating further disaster without anything positive on offer. At this point in time leaving the UK would leave Scotland out of the EU and the UK for the foreseeable future. Your argument seems to be Brexit was shit let's now do it again but with Scotland...

Saying the UK is dysfunctional let's potentially have more dysfunction isn't a convincing strategy, you're basically just doubling down on your already entrenched position, which will go well in an echo chamber but does absolutely nothing to convince anyone that's not moved by soundbites. 

I agree, the case needs to be made for independence. What I'm also saying though is a case needs to be made for the UK as well. My "perceived" grievances with the UK are shared by many, saying the UK is currently utterly dysfunctional isn't exactly controversial, there are over a hundred MPs for the ruling fucking party who agree! Pretending this can't get worse either way is as myopic as it comes. Both sides need to make a case as to why their way will be better than what we have now. If all the UK can offer is more of this, then that's a huge boost for yes.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

14 minutes ago, GAD said:

 

I agree, the case needs to be made for independence. What I'm also saying though is a case needs to be made for the UK as well. My "perceived" grievances with the UK are shared by many, saying the UK is currently utterly dysfunctional isn't exactly controversial, there are over a hundred MPs for the ruling fucking party who agree! Pretending this can't get worse either way is as myopic as it comes. Both sides need to make a case as to why their way will be better than what we have now. If all the UK can offer is more of this, then that's a huge boost for yes.

No but blindly believing Indy Scotland would be any better without putting up any points or arguments explaining why can't be treated as a reasonable stance. 

Fair enough that you don't want to make the positive case yourself, it would be quite nice if someone within the SNP would actually do so rather than hiding behind their veil of secrecy though. I think they need to tackle the pertinent issues that lost them the last referendum early on this time but I think the lack of forthcoming pro Indy arguments shows they're not exactly expecting to be fighting a referendum anytime soon. The rhetoric you've used is similar to what they'll use in the next General Election right enough.

[GAD]

17 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

No but blindly believing Indy Scotland would be any better without putting up any points or arguments explaining why can't be treated as a reasonable stance. 

Fair enough that you don't want to make the positive case yourself, it would be quite nice if someone within the SNP would actually do so rather than hiding behind their veil of secrecy though. I think they need to tackle the pertinent issues that lost them the last referendum early on this time but I think the lack of forthcoming pro Indy arguments shows they're not exactly expecting to be fighting a referendum anytime soon. The rhetoric you've used is similar to what they'll use in the next General Election right enough.

Yeah, but I'm not arguing that. I'm saying there is a case that needs to be made for independence, but there is also a case that needs to be made for staying in the UK as it currently stands. In fact, let's be honest here, you are the one advocating that we blindly believe everything will be fine if we stay in the UK, despite almost 6 years of pretty much constant crisis, without putting up any points or arguments as to why this is a reasonable stance. 

[Antlion]

45 minutes ago, GAD said:

 

I agree, the case needs to be made for independence. What I'm also saying though is a case needs to be made for the UK as well. My "perceived" grievances with the UK are shared by many, saying the UK is currently utterly dysfunctional isn't exactly controversial, there are over a hundred MPs for the ruling fucking party who agree! Pretending this can't get worse either way is as myopic as it comes. Both sides need to make a case as to why their way will be better than what we have now. If all the UK can offer is more of this, then that's a huge boost for yes.

This is not going to happen. There is going to be no case made for the reality of Johnson’s Brexit Britain. In the event of a referendum campaign, the UKNat parties will simply replay 2014 as if 2016 never happened: they’ll insist blindly that the UK is a beacon of stability and success (Labour proudly cheering on the Tories, Union Jacks waving). Brexit will be ignored by some, and we’ll be told it was benevolently bestowed on us for our own silly good by others (and besides, we shouldn’t be discussing it, because we 100% knew Brexit was happening before 2014 anyway!).

Make no mistake, the UK’s case for the UK will always be no more than: we’re bigger than you, we’re better than you, and you’re an uppity fool for even contemplating leaving the most glorious and all-powerful state in the history of the universe. That’s just how it is and we don’t need to offer any clear vision of Scotland’s future.*

* and if polls shift decisively towards independence, they’ll simply promise that their perfect system will be made even more perfect, somehow, at some point, maybe.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

26 minutes ago, GAD said:

Yeah, but I'm not arguing that. I'm saying there is a case that needs to be made for independence, but there is also a case that needs to be made for staying in the UK as it currently stands. In fact, let's be honest here, you are the one advocating that we blindly believe everything will be fine if we stay in the UK, despite almost 6 years of pretty much constant crisis, without putting up any points or arguments as to why this is a reasonable stance. 

Of course you're not arguing it but you're not elaborating which leaves your post as just what I stated it was. 

You agree the case needs to be made I'm just pointing out the rhetoric about how shit Westminster is isn't an argument for Independence, it's fair enough you want to leave it up to others to make the positive case for Indy and I'm not having a pop at you over your reluctance to do so. 

I've also never once said we should blindly believe everything will be better in the UK or said anything close to that, you've made that up. I've not attempted to make a case for remaining in the Union, the status quo is we are in the Union and Indy seems unlikely, until that changes the onus isn't on me. From my other posts in this section if you've seen them then you may gather I think and want Labour to win the next GE, I think that would be far more appealing and help the wider British public more than leaving the UK would. 

[GAD]

13 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Of course you're not arguing it but you're not elaborating which leaves your post as just what I stated it was. 

You agree the case needs to be made I'm just pointing out the rhetoric about how shit Westminster is isn't an argument for Independence, it's fair enough you want to leave it up to others to make the positive case for Indy and I'm not having a pop at you over your reluctance to do so. 

I've also never once said we should blindly believe everything will be better in the UK or said anything close to that, you've made that up. I've not attempted to make a case for remaining in the Union, the status quo is we are in the Union and Indy seems unlikely, until that changes the onus isn't on me. From my other posts in this section if you've seen them then you may gather I think and want Labour to win the next GE, I think that would be far more appealing and help the wider British public more than leaving the UK would. 

Elaborate on what? My point is a case will need to be made either way, that's not my job anymore than it's yours. I don't mind you not making a positive case for the union either, it's fine for you to leave it up to others as well. We are not politicians. Also, at no point did I say we should blindly believe everything will be solved by independence either.

However, if you think the absolute shambles of Westminster over the past 6 years, the loss of previously held rights, and the massive reduction in the standard of living, as well as Johnson and the Tories record in government aren't going to be front and centre of any campaign that may happen, then you are in for a big surprise. The record of the Westminster government is going to be a huge argument for Independence.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Just now, GAD said:

Elaborate on what? My point is a case will need to be made either way, that's not my job anymore than it's yours. I don't mind you not making a positive case for the union either, it's fine for you to leave it up to others as well. We are not politicians. Also, at no point did I say we should blindly believe everything will be solved by independence either.

However, if you think the absolute shambles of Westminster over the past 6 years, the loss of previously held rights, and the massive reduction in the standard of living, as well as Johnson and the Tories record in government aren't going to be front and centre of any campaign that may happen, then you are in for a big surprise. The record of the Westminster government is going to be a huge argument for Independence.

I've already said it'll be front and centre of their GE campaign, if they were confident of having a referendum we'd actually see substantive arguments other than "Westminster bad". You know tackling issues like Currency, hard borders, EU membership, Nato etc... 

The record of Westminster isn't a huge argument for Indy, that's been my whole point. It's a reason why some people are unhappy but it's not providing an alternative by any means. The only people that would find this point as compelling are people that are already ideologically sold on Indy. 

[jamamafegan]

I'm just pointing out the rhetoric about how shit Westminster is isn't an argument for Independence,

Well it is actually, for several reasons.

1) the system, from a Scottish perspective, is flawed. We rarely get the Westminster Government that we voted for. In an independent Scotland we would always get the government we vote for.

2) same as point one really - clearly Scotland did not want to leave the EU but votes across the rest of the UK sealed our fate. Not only do we not get the governments we vote for, we are at the mercy of whatever the rest of the UK votes when it comes to the massive decisions that will affect all of us. In an independent Scotland, those big decisions affecting the lives of Scottish people would be made by the people who live in this country and them alone.

3) the main opposition to the current Tory government, Labour, is a complete joke and will unlikely win any general election. That means we are faced with the future of a never ending conservative rule. The conservatives influence over the media has all but ensured that Labour won’t win an election. The Tories are full of lying, evil scum who don’t care about the people of the UK. In an independent Scotland, we would likely never need to worry about the Conservative party ever again.

In summary, Westminster is very shit and it’s a big reason why people should vote yes.

[GAD]

5 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I've already said it'll be front and centre of their GE campaign, if they were confident of having a referendum we'd actually see substantive arguments other than "Westminster bad". You know tackling issues like Currency, hard borders, EU membership, Nato etc... 

The record of Westminster isn't a huge argument for Indy, that's been my whole point. It's a reason why some people are unhappy but it's not providing an alternative by any means. The only people that would find this point as compelling are people that are already ideologically sold on Indy. 

Fair enough. I think you are wrong. I think the current state of Westminster will be a compelling reason for some people to switch to Indy, maybe you are right and it's not a good enough reason, but I honestly think many people looking at how thier standard of living has dropped and how people like Johnson, Rees Mogg, Patel, etc have behaved in office and think "f**k this". It's a record any "No" or "Remain" team will not want to have to defend, so they'll have to offer something to show how it's going to get better.

[williemillersmoustache]

The fact the UK has the second biggest unelected chamber on earth, shares an electoral system with just Belarus in Europe and it generates unassailable majorities from about 33% of only one of the 4 constituent nations is a pretty good argument. 

Also, Labour the putative alternative party of Government are clowns, equally beholden to a minority view in only one of the nations. Which isn't Scotland. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

9 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

 

Well it is actually, for several reasons.

1) the system, from a Scottish perspective, is flawed. We rarely get the Westminster Government that we voted for. In an independent Scotland we would always get the government we vote for.

2) same as point one really - clearly Scotland did not want to leave the EU but votes across the rest of the UK sealed our fate. Not only do we not get the governments we vote for, we are at the mercy of whatever the rest of the UK votes when it comes to the massive decisions that will affect all of us. In an independent Scotland, those big decisions affecting the lives of Scottish people would be made by the people who live in this country and them alone.

3) the main opposition to the current Tory government, Labour, is a complete joke and will unlikely win any general election. That means we are faced with the future of a never ending conservative rule. The conservatives influence over the media has all but ensured that Labour won’t win an election. The Tories are full of lying, evil scum who don’t care about the people of the UK. In an independent Scotland, we would likely never need to worry about the Conservative party ever again.

In summary, Westminster is very shit and it’s a big reason why people should vote yes.

 

I've highlighted the argument that you've made and then repeated. This is an advancement of Wesminster is shit, you want your individual vote to be worth more. Fair enough, that's respectable and extremely similar to why so many people voted for Brexit. 

I disagree regarding the perpetual Tory rule argument. 

You may have missed it but I said to GAD that the Westminster is shit argument is one that's unlikely to convince any floating voters, you'll get greenies for your impressive Tory bashing but other than that it's furthering none of the bigger issues.

Congrats on providing a decent point regarding individuals feeling better represented, think that's the first one posted by anyone since Nicolas speech. 

2 minutes ago, GAD said:

Fair enough. I think you are wrong. I think the current state of Westminster will be a compelling reason for some people to switch to Indy, maybe you are right and it's not a good enough reason, but I honestly think many people looking at how thier standard of living has dropped and how people like Johnson, Rees Mogg, Patel, etc have behaved in office and think "f**k this". It's a record any "No" or "Remain" team will not want to have to defend, so they'll have to offer something to show how it's going to get better.

Yeah fair enough, we can agree to disagree on the effectiveness of that attack line. 

Hopefully we'll see some substantive points put forward soonish, I'm very cynical that will happen and maintain the view we're not seeing any because they'd prefer to fight a GE on the Westminster shit line. 

[Left Back]

2 hours ago, jamamafegan said:

 

Well it is actually, for several reasons.

1) the system, from a Scottish perspective, is flawed. We rarely get the Westminster Government that we voted for. In an independent Scotland we would always get the government we vote for.

2) same as point one really - clearly Scotland did not want to leave the EU but votes across the rest of the UK sealed our fate. Not only do we not get the governments we vote for, we are at the mercy of whatever the rest of the UK votes when it comes to the massive decisions that will affect all of us. In an independent Scotland, those big decisions affecting the lives of Scottish people would be made by the people who live in this country and them alone.

3) the main opposition to the current Tory government, Labour, is a complete joke and will unlikely win any general election. That means we are faced with the future of a never ending conservative rule. The conservatives influence over the media has all but ensured that Labour won’t win an election. The Tories are full of lying, evil scum who don’t care about the people of the UK. In an independent Scotland, we would likely never need to worry about the Conservative party ever again.

In summary, Westminster is very shit and it’s a big reason why people should vote yes.

 

The flip side of this is also true. 

The SNP have no opposition in Scotland and also are doing a less than stellar job to put it mildly.   That may be a compelling reason for yes voters to switch to no in the same way people describe it being a possibility the other way.

I've read various posts in this forum saying the SNP are a means to an end and you can vote for whoever you like after independence.  Of course that is true but it's illogical to assume that if a GE is held after Scotland becomes an independent country that the SNP would not win that election off the back of delivering independence.  It's also illogical to assume people would en-masse switch back to Labour or wholesale to the LibDems.  We all know that he chances of the Tories winning a GE in an independent Scotland are hee-haw.

Where are these mythical parties going to come from to provide an opposition or an alternative to the SNP?  In my view it's fantasyland stuff.

[williemillersmoustache]

5 minutes ago, Left Back said:

The flip side of this is also true. 

The SNP have no opposition in Scotland and also are doing a less than stellar job to put it mildly.   That may be a compelling reason for yes voters to switch to no in the same way people describe it being a possibility the other way.

I've read various posts in this forum saying the SNP are a means to an end and you can vote for whoever you like after independence.  Of course that is true but it's illogical to assume that if a GE is held after Scotland becomes an independent country that the SNP would not win that election off the back of delivering independence.  It's also illogical to assume people would en-masse switch back to Labour or wholesale to the LibDems.  We all know that he chances of the Tories winning a GE in an independent Scotland are hee-haw.

Where are these mythical parties going to come from to provide an opposition or an alternative to the SNP?  In my view it's fantasyland stuff.

In fairness, and I do hate to be fair to them, the branch offices would all become new independent parties in their own right.  While there of course would be a transition period, new governance structures and some affiliation perhaps to the UK registered parties, they will eventually stop being the craven little finger puppets they are now. Capable of their own thoughts and policies and not pushed out each week to humiliate themselves defending the indefensible and pretending they get to choose their own socks and bedtime. 

[Granny Danger]

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

The flip side of this is also true. 

The SNP have no opposition in Scotland and also are doing a less than stellar job to put it mildly.   That may be a compelling reason for yes voters to switch to no in the same way people describe it being a possibility the other way.

I've read various posts in this forum saying the SNP are a means to an end and you can vote for whoever you like after independence.  Of course that is true but it's illogical to assume that if a GE is held after Scotland becomes an independent country that the SNP would not win that election off the back of delivering independence.  It's also illogical to assume people would en-masse switch back to Labour or wholesale to the LibDems.  We all know that he chances of the Tories winning a GE in an independent Scotland are hee-haw.

Where are these mythical parties going to come from to provide an opposition or an alternative to the SNP?  In my view it's fantasyland stuff.

You have a strange perspective.  Some/much of the driving force for new parties will come from within the SNP itself, there are undoubtedly different views amongst party members as well as MPs, MSPs and Councillors as to what the priorities should be in an Independent Scotland.  Once activists in other existing parties also accept the reality of Independence they will also start looking for another home or to reorganise themselves accordingly.

One of the big benefits will be that I cannot see anyone advocating for an electoral system that’s not PR based so the elected Parliament will be more representative of the results at the ballot box.  I suspect, and hope for, a strong Green influence in a general left-of-centre government.

 

[G51]

The SNP will definitely break up post-independence. John Mason is already itching to start a Scottish equivalent of Aontú.

[jamamafegan]

The flip side of this is also true. 
The SNP have no opposition in Scotland and also are doing a less than stellar job to put it mildly.   That may be a compelling reason for yes voters to switch to no in the same way people describe it being a possibility the other way.

The best way to get rid of the SNP in Scotland would be to vote Yes. Their job would be done. Sure they might hold onto power for a few years after but they wouldn’t last. I believe a lot of new parties would emerge in the aftermath giving voters more appealing options.