SNP to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

[najaB]

The SNP respected the 2014 result in that it did not start making Scotland independent, but is it really respecting the result to be pushing for another vote simply because the first one gave the 'wrong' answer?

In a word, yes. They didn't claim that the referendum was fixed, they didn't arrange to storm Parliament, as was posted earlier in the thread (apologies, I did try to find the poster but failed) they asked themselves why their argument wasn't accepted, what they could do to convince people that independence is the right idea and then campaigned for Government on the basis that they would hold another referendum if and when they believe it could be won.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Indeed. It's also worth pointing out that, if the Remain campaign had been just slightly more effective - enough to sway an extra 1.9% of voters across the country into voting Remain, then the result would have been an overall vote to Remain, despite England and Wales voting Leave. In that situation (a perfectly plausible situation, but which didn't happen in the end), it would have been Scotland (plus a small contribution from Northern Ireland) that caused England and Wales to remain. And that would've been perfectly democratic because it was a UK-wide vote on what the UK would have done. It's a pretty fair bet that, in that situation, almost no-one in mainstream politics (bar a few extremists) would have been complaining that Scotland had shafted England or that Scotland didn't care about England etc. (Though I'm pretty sure the SNP would still have found some other excuse to complain that Scotland wasn't being treated fairly and call for another Independence referendum).

Excellent point.

In a word, yes. They didn't claim that the referendum was fixed, they didn't arrange to storm Parliament, as was posted earlier in the thread (apologies, I did try to find the poster but failed) they asked themselves why their argument wasn't accepted, what they could do to convince people that independence is the right idea and then campaigned for Government on the basis that they would hold another referendum if and when they believe it could be won.

Although I don't agree, you make a good point. We still need to establish some sort of threshold when we say 'Ok, we've had enough referendums for now, let's park the independence idea' (assuming Scotland votes to remain).

 

[windingroad]

No-one disputes the fact that Scotland is a country in it's own right, just that it was not 'singled out' by England.

You write as though Brexit was an English plan to subvert the Scottish people, which isn't true in the slightest.

Why do you keep trying to create this victimhood narrative? I do not believe (and have not said) that England is an amorphous monolith dedicated to targeting Scotland. What I am expressing is a power imbalance inherent to the union which means what England collectively votes for, England gets. And unfortunately it so happens that what England votes for is frequently very different to what Scotland votes for, hence why the independence issue has not gone away.

The Scottish votes in 2016 were counted with equal weight to English, Welsh & Irish votes - to say that Scotland's will has somehow been undermined is wrong, as it was a UK-wide vote.

It's incredibly frustrating to keep reading sentences like this when myself and others have repeatedly and at length explained why it feels unfair to so many people. We are all very much aware that it was a UK-wide vote and the mechanics of that, and don't need that to be explained!

 

[gabrielhj07]

it feels unfair to so many people.

Feelings are exactly what need to be avoided in a vote of such importance. Voting on emotions was what got us in the mess we're in with Brexit, a breakup of the union would be 10 times worse.

 

[tomuk]

The reason that's important is that it shows a universal difference in attitudes (versus the rest of the UK) across Scotland

Pray what are these different attitudes you allude to?

 

[windingroad]

Feelings are exactly what need to be avoided in a vote of such importance. Voting on emotions was what got us in the mess we're in with Brexit, a breakup of the union would be 10 times worse.

Why are you assuming these feelings are irrational? The strong majority of voters in Scotland wanted to Remain in the EU, and as a result feel frustrated and alienated that we left anyway. That's a perfectly rational thing to feel.

Pray what are these different attitudes you allude to?

Brexit, in this case, as I said. Living in Scotland was a strong predictor of your voting choice relative to the rest of the UK.

 

[najaB]

Feelings are exactly what need to be avoided in a vote of such importance. Voting on emotions was what got us in the mess we're in with Brexit, a breakup of the union would be 10 times worse.

To some extent, feelings are fundamental to the question of nationhood. Nationality is as much an abstract feeling and concept as it is a legal/technical construct.

 

[Butts]

Where did anyone say England "has it in for" Scotland? I don't think anyone is saying it's a grand conspiracy, just that the United Kingdom as it currently exists doesn't serve Scotland very well politically. Scotland is irrelevant in national elections and referenda, because what England votes for determines the result. That's important, because Scotland votes very differently and has for some time now, so that disconnect is exacerbated.

On the Brexit point, it couldn't really be more stark. It's not like Scotland voted marginally for Remain, or that the Remain vote was especially concentrated in certain areas. Every single constituency voted Remain. Every single one! Just look at the map: the Remain vote literally stops at the border. That is a symptom of a country that is moving in a different direction from England and I don't think it's very surprising to see a certain amount of resentment arise from that.

The constituency or region as they were called that came closest to "upsetting the applecart" for a remain clean sweep was Moray where they scraped in by 118 votes !!

 

[gabrielhj07]

Why are you assuming these feelings are irrational? The strong majority of voters in Scotland wanted to Remain in the EU, and as a result feel frustrated and alienated that we left anyway. That's a perfectly rational thing to feel.

Who said irrational? In fact I agree with you here.

To some extent, feelings are fundamental to the question of nationhood. Nationality is as much an abstract feeling and concept as it is a legal/technical construct.

No question about it, and I understand this very much, however feelings should not be relied upon as much as careful examination of the facts, and analysis of the choices open. Relying on feelings alone led us to Brexit, which is a lesson we really ought to learn.

 

[windingroad]

To some extent, feelings are fundamental to the question of nationhood. Nationality is as much an abstract feeling and concept as it is a legal/technical construct.

Exactly this. I'd also argue it's a mistake to think that (for example) Remain was inherently rational and Leave was inherently emotional. I think both were deeply emotional choices, just in different ways. The same is true of unionism and the independence movement to a great extent.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I think both were deeply emotional choices, just in different ways.

This is especially true, neither side was able to articulate the facts properly.

 

[Butts]

Where did anyone say England "has it in for" Scotland? I don't think anyone is saying it's a grand conspiracy, just that the United Kingdom as it currently exists doesn't serve Scotland very well politically. Scotland is irrelevant in national elections and referenda, because what England votes for determines the result. That's important, because Scotland votes very differently and has for some time now, so that disconnect is exacerbated.

On the Brexit point, it couldn't really be more stark. It's not like Scotland voted marginally for Remain, or that the Remain vote was especially concentrated in certain areas. Every single constituency voted Remain. Every single one! Just look at the map: the Remain vote literally stops at the border. That is a symptom of a country that is moving in a different direction from England and I don't think it's very surprising to see a certain amount of resentment arise from that.

That's not strictly true as in the 2017 General Election the Conservative gains in Scotland helped mitigate their losses in England .

 

[windingroad]

This is especially true, neither side was able to articulate the facts properly.

Are these kinds of decisions ever really divorced from emotions though? They're always wrapped up in identity and values whichever side of the aisle you're on, and a lot of people have a very subjective, loosely defined sense of the world they want to live in, and vote accordingly. Lots of people (including myself) feel affection for some version of Europeanism, for example, but I think you'd struggle to express that in factual terms.

That's not strictly true as in the 2017 General Election the Conservative gains in Scotland helped mitigate their losses in England .

Of course Scottish MPs will have an impact on final numbers, but they almost never actually change the outcome of the election.

 

[tomuk]

feel affection for some version of Europeanism, for example, but I think you'd struggle to express that in factual terms.

Can you give any examples of what you mean by Europeanism?

 

[AlterEgo]

To some extent, feelings are fundamental to the question of nationhood. Nationality is as much an abstract feeling and concept as it is a legal/technical construct.

Quite. And to give Scotland its credit, it does *feel* like it *could be* its own country. It is very distinct from England.

About 90% of Irish republicanism and nationalism is abstract feeling, yet this gets an easy ride from English people, many of whom actually agree with Irish unification!

 

[DustyBin]

Exactly this. I'd also argue it's a mistake to think that (for example) Remain was inherently rational and Leave was inherently emotional. I think both were deeply emotional choices, just in different ways. The same is true of unionism and the independence movement to a great extent.

I agree with you here (for probably the first time on this thread!).

This is especially true, neither side was able to articulate the facts properly.

True, coupled with the issue that there were a lot of unknowns.

 

[ComUtoR]

We still need to establish some sort of threshold when we say 'Ok, we've had enough referendums for now, let's park the independence idea' (assuming Scotland votes to remain).

Maybe a 'best of three' would work.

 

[Falcon1200]

Well given the Greens are explicitly a pro-independence party, and the SNPs and Greens command a majority, I think you're going to struggle somewhat to argue there isn't a mandate.

I do argue that because I know, for a fact, that not every person who voted SNP is a die-hard Nationalist but simply believed that they would form the best Government (and I have a vague memory of the FM actually telling someone, pre-election, that a vote for the SNP was not automatically a vote for independence - Is that correct ?), and while the Green Party also supports independence, that is not their primary purpose or reason for existing, so it follows that not every vote for them is automatically a vote for independence, either.

Out of interest, if you think that 55%/45% doesn't definitively settle the matter, would you argue the same thing the other way round? If the referendum result had been 55% for independence, would you be happy to say, that's not a decisive enough margin, and therefore we'd better have another referendum a few years down the line to confirm before we go for independence? (I'm pretty sure the SNP would in that situation say that 55% is totally decisive).

Indeed, in fact for the SNP 50% plus 1 Yes votes would be sufficient, and there would be no question of Indyref 3 if they got the result they wanted.

It's not particularly on this issue; It's the fact that a referendum was held. In normal circumstances, I'd say the same thing about a referendum on any other topic. I voted Remain in the Brexit referendum and was very sad about the result. But I also accept that it's not appropriate to have another referendum to try to overturn that result.

I voted in both referenda, Indyref 1 and Brexit, the first went the way I voted and the second did not. I believe absolutely that both results must be respected and neither should be rerun in the hope of a different outcome.

The main theme of the anti-independence members in this, and probably every other outlet seems to be "Scotland is not good enough" to go it alone.

That is a common slur on Unionists, 'you're doing down Scotland, don't believe in Scotland, etc, etc' but it is nonsense; I do not doubt that Scotland is perfectly capable, despite the repeated failures of our current Government, of running itself. I just do not agree however that Scotland's future would be best served by independence.

Absolutely spot on. It is fear driving the reluctance towards this absolutely acceptable and completely democratic referendum.

Not fear, just deep concern that having already gone through the divisiveness, wasted time and resources in 2014, we have to endure all this again (and £20 million is just the start), to answer a question that for me was settled, as someone once said, 'for a generation', in 2014.

 

[windingroad]

I do argue that because I know, for a fact, that not every person who voted SNP is a die-hard Nationalist but simply believed that they would form the best Government (and I have a vague memory of the FM actually telling someone, pre-election, that a vote for the SNP was not automatically a vote for independence - Is that correct ?), and while the Green Party also supports independence, that is not their primary purpose or reason for existing, so it follows that not every vote for them is automatically a vote for independence, either.

This is becoming very tiresome. You are quite correct that a vote for the SNP was not necessarily a "vote for independence", which is why the SNP is not unilaterally declaring independence! A vote for the SNP and the Greens was, however, a vote for implementing their manifestos, both of which included commitments to hold another vote.

You seem to be objecting to the concept of a manifesto! By voting for a party, you do so in the knowledge that they may pursue any of the policies they've outlined. If any of those policies (like another referendum) is a deal breaker for you, you vote for a different party. I'm afraid another referendum wasn't a deal breaker for enough people. which is why the SNP is in government. That's democracy.

Indeed, in fact for the SNP 50% plus 1 Yes votes would be sufficient, and there would be no question of Indyref 3 if they got the result they wanted.

Why on earth would the SNP campaign to overturn a positive result? It is not the SNP's job to be their own opposition! If unionist parties stood on holding a third referendum, and won an election on that basis, they would be entitled to hold another referendum. That's how this works. That's how this has always worked!

This notion that the SNP are holding Scotland to ransom has never been based in fact. Back when I was a committed unionist voter I constantly heard all sorts of ludicrous conspiracy theorising from other unionists (the "nazi dictatorship of Wee Jimmy Krankie") and even then I never understood it.

I believe absolutely that both results must be respected and neither should be rerun in the hope of a different outcome.

Is Scotland now independent? If not, I would suggest the results have been respected! What you're saying is really no different in practice from suggesting we shouldn't hold another general election "in the hope of a different outcome" because the results "must be respected". Democracy doesn't just stop once you get a result you like!

The bottom line is this:

I have absolutely no problem with people holding differing views on independence, or for opposing another referendum. I just find it utterly exasperating that so many pretend the whole exercise is a sinister undemocratic plot, which simply isn't factual. If you want the SNP out of office you need to start winning elections!

 

[MotCO]

This is becoming very tiresome. You are quite correct that a vote for the SNP was not necessarily a "vote for independence", which is why the SNP is not unilaterally declaring independence! A vote for the SNP and the Greens was, however, a vote for implementing their manifestos, both of which included commitments to hold another vote.

Surely people who voted Green did not see Independence as their main concern, otherwise they would have voted SNP. They believed in the Green values, and Independence was just a side issue.

Indeed. It's also worth pointing out that, if the Remain campaign had been just slightly more effective - enough to sway an extra 1.9% of voters across the country into voting Remain, then the result would have been an overall vote to Remain, despite England and Wales voting Leave. In that situation (a perfectly plausible situation, but which didn't happen in the end), it would have been Scotland (plus a small contribution from Northern Ireland) that caused England and Wales to remain. And that would've been perfectly democratic because it was a UK-wide vote on what the UK would have done. It's a pretty fair bet that, in that situation, almost no-one in mainstream politics (bar a few extremists) would have been complaining that Scotland had shafted England or that Scotland didn't care about England etc. (Though I'm pretty sure the SNP would still have found some other excuse to complain that Scotland wasn't being treated fairly and call for another Independence referendum).

And looking to the future, it's very plausible that the next general election may produce a result in which the Conservatives have a majority of English/Welsh/NI seats, but are unable to form a Government because, when Scottish seats are added into the mix, Labour/the LibDems/the SNP have more seats, and the SNP opts to support a Labour minority administration. Scotland's 8-ish% of the population really does give it the chance to have a huge influence across the UK - if the rest of the UK is sufficiently evenly split (Obviously, much less so if the rest of the UK votes heavily one way or the other, as was the case in the EU referendum and in the 2019 election).

Excellent points, particularly the second to assuage the feeling that Scottish votes don't count.

But what exactly are the issues where the Scots feel they have no influence. They can clearly influence all of the devolved services, but do they want any influence over defence issues, foreign policy, overseas aid etc? They have limited tax raising powers, but can't control monetary policy, but by the same token no-one but the Bank of England (a UK institution) can.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is becoming very tiresome. You are quite correct that a vote for the SNP was not necessarily a "vote for independence", which is why the SNP is not unilaterally declaring independence! A vote for the SNP and the Greens was, however, a vote for implementing their manifestos, both of which included commitments to hold another vote.

The fact that the manifesto is for 'another vote' not for a direct independence declaration doesn't make a difference. It still amounts to a manifesto commitment to re-run a vote that has already taken place within recent times, and therefore amounts for all practical purposes to a pledge to ignore a prior democratic vote. That doesn't seem to me like a legitimate thing a Government should be doing in a democracy. You have to remember that 'another vote' is not free. It costs a lot of money to run, diverts Government resources from doing things like running the country, creates a huge amount of uncertainty for businesses (and for ordinary people) and by its nature stirs up divisions and toxicity between people of different opinions. When you're taking a vote for the first time in an attempt to resolve an important issue, then there's a good case for saying that those problems are worth putting up with in order to resolve the issue and have democracy at work. But they are definitely not something you should be stirring up in order to re-run a vote because you didn't like the result last time.

Why not try, just being patient? You've already had a referendum in the very recent past. Accept that, and have the Scottish Government get on with what is supposed to be its job: Running the country. In about 12-15 year's time (which really isn't that long in the big scheme of things) it'll be 'a generation' since that last referendum, and at that point, no-one in their right mind is going to object to a fresh campaign for a new referendum to see if a new generation of Scots want independence, if there seems to be sufficient demand for such a referendum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what exactly are the issues where the Scots feel they have no influence. They can clearly influence all of the devolved services, but do they want any influence over defence issues, foreign policy, overseas aid etc? They have limited tax raising powers, but can't control monetary policy, but by the same token no-one but the Bank of England (a UK institution) can.

Brexit appears to be the main sticking point, but I can't see any way that could be resolved (whether in the Union or not) without either England at least joining EEA/EFTA (something I'd favour, but I don't see it happening any time soon) or putting up the barbed wire and implementing a hard border.

 

[najaB]

I do argue that because I know, for a fact, that not every person who voted SNP is a die-hard Nationalist but simply believed that they would form the best Government (and I have a vague memory of the FM actually telling someone, pre-election, that a vote for the SNP was not automatically a vote for independence - Is that correct ?), and while the Green Party also supports independence, that is not their primary purpose or reason for existing, so it follows that not every vote for them is automatically a vote for independence, either.

All of which is true. However, both the Greens and SNP were correct when they said that a vote for them wasn't automatically a vote for independence. It was, however, a vote for a party that made a opportunity to vote for independence a key part of their manifestos.

How anyone can claim that the SNP are being antidemocratic I don't know: If you like the SNP or Green agenda but don't like independence then simply vote "No" whenever the referendum is held.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2022 ==

The fact that the manifesto is for 'another vote' not for a direct independence declaration doesn't make a difference. It still amounts to a manifesto commitment to re-run a vote that has already taken place within recent times, and therefore amounts for all practical purposes to a pledge to ignore a prior democratic vote. That doesn't seem to me like a legitimate thing a Government should be doing in a democracy.

Using that logic, because we voted in a Conservative government with a stonking majority at the last General Election, we can just skip the next one since it was clear that that's what the country wanted forever.

The SNP's position after the 2014 referendum was clear - they were still pro-independence (obviously), they were still going to campaign for another referendum, but that they wouldn't push for it until there was what they saw as a real appetite for a vote. Using the data from here (Opinion polling on Scottish independence), the appetite for independence is higher today (45% Yes/ 46% No) than it was in the last data prior to the 2014 vote being announced (40% Yes / 52% No).

Given how close the final result was, there's every reason to say that the realistic chance criteria has been met.

You have to remember that 'another vote' is not free. It costs a lot of money to run, diverts Government resources from doing things like running the country, creates a huge amount of uncertainty for businesses (and for ordinary people) and by its nature stirs up divisions and toxicity between people of different opinions.

Freedom costs more than tyranny. Deal with it.

 

[windingroad]

The fact that the manifesto is for 'another vote' not for a direct independence declaration doesn't make a difference. It still amounts to a manifesto commitment to re-run a vote that has already taken place within recent times, and therefore amounts for all practical purposes to a pledge to ignore a prior democratic vote.

It does not "ignore a prior democratic vote" any more than a general election ignores the last one! If the opinion of the Scottish people has not changed, the referendum will get the same result. And if it gets a different result, clearly the opinion of the Scottish people has changed, in which case as a democrat I'd assume you'd be happy they had an opportunity to express that view. What on earth is the problem?

That doesn't seem to me like a legitimate thing a Government should be doing in a democracy.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. It is democratic in spirit, fact, and law. What size of majority would the SNP and/or Greens have to achieve in order for you to countenance another vote?

You have to remember that 'another vote' is not free. It costs a lot of money to run, diverts Government resources from doing things like running the country, creates a huge amount of uncertainty for businesses (and for ordinary people) and by its nature stirs up divisions and toxicity between people of different opinions.

These are all fair criticisms. But again, voters were given the opportunity to vote for different parties at the last election with those criticisms in mind, and delivered a majority to the SNP/Greens nonetheless.

Why not try, just being patient? You've already had a referendum in the very recent past. Accept that, and have the Scottish Government get on with what is supposed to be its job

The SNP were not elected on a platform of patience! The minority parties in an election do not get to dictate what the elected majority government does or does not do. The Scottish Government is getting on with implementing its policies, as any good government should. If you disagree with those policies that's entirely understandable, but the fact they're doing so isn't an affront to democracy in any credible sense.

 

[DustyBin]

Freedom costs more than tyranny. Deal with it.

So you’re living under tyranny now are you? Really?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Freedom costs more than tyranny. Deal with it.

If you think Scotland's part in the UK is under "tyranny", then you're deluded, frankly. The fact that a vote has already been offered, and no doubt will be again, is ample evidence.

 

[najaB]

So you’re living under tyranny now are you? Really?

No. Where did I say that?

@DynamicSpirit objected to democracy on the basis of cost, I responded that democracy costs more than the alternatives.

If you think Scotland's part in the UK is under "tyranny", then you're deluded, frankly.

You know me better than that.

 

[windingroad]

So you’re living under tyranny now are you? Really?

If you think Scotland's part in the UK is under "tyranny", then you're deluded, frankly.

These are incredibly uncharitable interpretations of what was said. The point was simply that the costs of democracy aren't a good argument against exercising it, not that a tyrannical government exists. Most people who are independence-adjacent do not froth at the mouth about bonny Scotland being occupied by the evil English empire, contrary to popular belief.

I am English myself, but lived in Scotland for a while. When I arrived I was strongly anti-independence and when I left my opinion had completely changed. My experience is far from unique, and that's something some people would do well to reflect on.

 

[DustyBin]

No. Where did I say that?

@DynamicSpirit objected to democracy on the basis of cost, I responded that democracy costs more than the alternatives.

You know me better than that.

Ok fair enough I’ll take your word for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2022 ==

These are incredibly uncharitable interpretations of what was said. The point was simply that the costs of democracy aren't a good argument against exercising it, not that a tyrannical government exists. Most people who are independence-adjacent do not froth at the mouth about bonny Scotland being occupied by the evil English empire, contrary to popular belief.

I am English myself, but lived in Scotland for a while. When I arrived I was strongly anti-independence and when I left my opinion had completely changed. My experience is far from unique, and that's something some people would do well to reflect on.

As above I accept that my interpretation was incorrect.

It was a very easily misinterpreted statement to make however.

 

[El Blanco]

What a mess. No wonder Scotland is stagnating. This thread - whilst somewhat entertaining - encapsulates the impact on a whole country of the ongoing constitutional question. Same tired arguments on both sides with people getting further entrenched.

I suspect most people (apart from those who would never countenance independence under any circumstances) in the “No thanks” or undecided camp would base any future vote on the perennial question which is simply whether or not they feel that they would be better or worse off.

Unfortunately, for the pro-independence side, what was presented by Nicola Sturgeon early this week used very selective statistics and defaulted to the usual emotional arguments.

Personally, I am still of the view that Scottish Independence would cause too much short to medium term economic impact to persuade me to vote for it.

The current Scottish Government would be better working with others to address the challenges within the economy (low number of working age tax payers compared to others, the higher proportion of public sector workforce which leads to less wealth creation, the high welfare bill and attracting more people from other parts of the UK) which could affect the economic case in a more positive way.