When will it go all wrong for the SNP?

[GusB]

Indeed, it is the SNP's choice (and I have to admit their right, as the elected albeit minority administration) to impose higher taxes so that things such as free prescriptions, free bus travel for young people, free university education etc can be provided; All these 'free' things do have to be paid for at some time, by someone!

There is an effective majority administration in Scotland. Just because it isn't made up of a single party doesn't make it less legitimate.

Who knows? I don't, and I very doubt the Nationalists do either. A key question, should they ever achieve their dream of independence and EU membership, is what would Scotland's financial position regarding the latter? ie would Scotland be a net contributor to or recipient of EU funding, and in either case, by how much? These are questions that would have to be answered, before any possible referendum re-run.

These are only questions that can be answered after a referendum and, let's face it, whether a future Scotland in the EU is a net contributor or not is something that your average voter is going to care about. It's definitely not a question that needs to be answered now.

Also, wouldn't Scotland have to reapply for EU membership? It wouldn't be an instant decision,so any fiancial status would have to be made clear.

Has it though?

Yes, Scotland would have to reapply. However, having been part of an EU state in recent years, our legislation is still largely compatible and it wouldn't be a long wait to rejoin. That's assuming that we'd reapply in the first place; while the SNP favour rejoining, I believe that Alba is in favour of being a member of EFTA. Any decision on Scotland's future in Europe would have to be made after independence and to make that decision now would be utterly pointless.

 

[WAB]

I would be quite happy to pay more tax for better public services, and I think the SNP benefits from that policy. Indeed, a high-tax, high-services system is not something to be ashamed of. However, to point the finger at Westminster is thoroughly disingenuous! I suspect there will be a good few people in the SNP who will be desperately trying to find a new scapegoat 1.2 seconds after a Yes vote is declared (although they could just blame Westminster for next century or so, like the Tories are doing with Labour ).

 

[Falcon1200]

Just because it isn't made up of a single party doesn't make it less legitimate.

I did not say it was less legitimate!

These are only questions that can be answered after a referendum and, let's face it, whether a future Scotland in the EU is a net contributor or not is something that your average voter is going to care about. It's definitely not a question that needs to be answered now.

I would very much disagree, how Scotland's economy would fare post-independence is just one of many questions that must be addressed before any possible referendum, so that voters can make an informed choice.

 

[GusB]

I would very much disagree, how Scotland's economy would fare post-independence is just one of many questions that must be addressed before any possible referendum, so that voters can make an informed choice.

No government can bind the hands of another. The SNP's policy is to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity, but it will be down to the voters of an independent Scotland as to which option is taken. This does not have to be decided before an independence referendum.

 

[WAB]

No government can bind the hands of another. The SNP's policy is to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity, but it will be down to the voters of an independent Scotland as to which option is taken. This does not have to be decided before an independence referendum.

A convenient Brexit-style get-out clause then

 

[102 fan]

I would be quite happy to pay more tax for better public services, and I think the SNP benefits from that policy. Indeed, a high-tax, high-services system is not something to be ashamed of. However, to point the finger at Westminster is thoroughly disingenuous! I suspect there will be a good few people in the SNP who will be desperately trying to find a new scapegoat 1.2 seconds after a Yes vote is declared (although they could just blame Westminster for next century or so, like the Tories are doing with Labour ).

Very laudable, but there's no guarantee that the money will be spent properly, and not on vanity projects like bilingual Road signs.

 

[Butts]

As their Conference opens in Aberdeen today perhaps it is an appropriate time to reflect on the current downturn in fortunes they are experiencing ?

From a once seemingly impregnable position they seem to be stumbling from one crisis to another losing voters and support along the way.

With the recent By Election loss to Labour and the defection of Lisa Cameron to The Conservatives what calamity is next on the horizon ?

Can this be attributed to the departure of Nicola Sturgeon being replaced by the bumbling Yousaf or does it go further back than that ?

Is their dream of Independence dead in the water ?

 

[deltic]

The SNP was held together by the idea of Scottish independence and was able to bring those on the right and left together who in other policy areas were miles apart.

With support for independence stagnating those other policy differences are making themselves felt. Socially conservative groups within the party especially are unhappy with the Trans policy that Sturgeon was pushing before she stood down.

 

[Blindtraveler]

It definitely goes further back. There's been a lot of poor decision-making which if you dig deep enough you can find for some years now but the big difference with sturgeon who despite me being unable to stand her one little bit I will Grant is that she knows what to do with the media. And whilst there are people definitely better at it she is sufficiently competent to absolutely have a handle on this

 

[Falcon1200]

Is their dream of Independence dead in the water ?

Their dream of independence has always been dead in the water because they have never been able to convince a majority of the Scottish electorate of the benefits of removing Scotland from the UK; Even with every possible advantage handed to them on a plate, ie Brexit, BoJo and then Fizzy Lizzy as PM, opinion polls have rarely showed more than 50% support for independence. And of course the one meaningful poll, in 2014, was utterly and absolutely decisive (not that they accepted it of course).

I have always been prepared to change my vote depending on circumstances at the time, but I will never, ever, vote for the SNP, or for independence, because I simply do not believe their pie in the sky raison d'etre. Nothing they say or do will change that, regardless of who their leader is.

 

[Blindtraveler]

There are problems in this party long before the departure of sturgeon, sturgeons departure however brought them to a head along with the assorted turmoil that followed, whilst I have no time whatsoever for sturgeon I'll give her one theme and one thing only, she was really good with the media and so therefore I suspect a lot of the stuff that we're now seeing went either unnoticed or at least unchallened by the press and therefore by defacto the public because she very much new watch she was doing and could keep things moving either in her personal favor or that of the party.

 

[McRhu]

Dipping my humble toe in the murky waters it is my impression that the SNP are indeed finished and that the huge swing of traditional Scottish labour voters that brought them to power has now gone irrevocably into reverse. Their tide would seem to be going out.

 

[Blindtraveler]

And it will be very interesting to see if all those voters simply returned to labour or not, rather Glenn and Hamilton has swung back and forth between Labour and SNP in the time so can't really in my view be used as an accurate barometer

If Lisa Cameron can hold East Kilbride for the conservatives or indeed if she herself goes but a future conservative candidate can hold it then that would be interesting but also unsurprising in some senses, East Kilbride already has more conservative voters than some areas, neither labour or the SNP have ever done brilliantly north of Perth on a line running the A9 and it would unsurpriseing if the liberal democrats and conservative carved that little area up between them quite nicely. I have no idea what will happen on the Western isles except that with the last few years of travel chaos I don't think it will be Scottish nationalist, meanwhile I suspect the political map in the Scottish borders and Dumfries and Galloway will look almost entirely blue



Moray plus Aberdeen and shires is also one to watch in my view, the Aberdeen South seat also swings about quite regularly in particular. Where every party will need to work hard for its votes is the Central belt, will the badly introduced Glasgow lower emissions zone the effector in a city that has been a bit of an SNP bastian in the last decade or so? What will happen in the capital which is again a changed landscape since the last election and still changing

 

[Speed43125]

And it will be very interesting to see if all those voters simply returned to labour or not, rather Glenn and Hamilton has swung back and forth between Labour and SNP in the time so can't really in my view be used as an accurate barometer

If Lisa Cameron can hold East Kilbride for the conservatives or indeed if she herself goes but a future conservative candidate can hold it then that would be interesting but also unsurprising in some senses, East Kilbride already has more conservative voters than some areas, neither labour or the SNP have ever done brilliantly north of Perth on a line running the A9 and it would unsurpriseing if the liberal democrats and conservative carved that little area up between them quite nicely. I have no idea what will happen on the Western isles except that with the last few years of travel chaos I don't think it will be Scottish nationalist, meanwhile I suspect the political map in the Scottish borders and Dumfries and Galloway will look almost entirely blue



Moray plus Aberdeen and shires is also one to watch in my view, the Aberdeen South seat also swings about quite regularly in particular. Where every party will need to work hard for its votes is the Central belt, will the badly introduced Glasgow lower emissions zone the effector in a city that has been a bit of an SNP bastian in the last decade or so? What will happen in the capital which is again a changed landscape since the last election and still changing

I'd be rather surprised if those north of Perth would change from SNP to Tory en masse. A return in various constituencies of traditional Lim Dem might well occur, but I think we might be overstating the issues facing the SNP.

 

[renegademaster]

As their Conference opens in Aberdeen today perhaps it is an appropriate time to reflect on the current downturn in fortunes they are experiencing ?

From a once seemingly impregnable position they seem to be stumbling from one crisis to another losing voters and support along the way.

With the recent By Election loss to Labour and the defection of Lisa Cameron to The Conservatives what calamity is next on the horizon ?

Can this be attributed to the departure of Nicola Sturgeon being replaced by the bumbling Yousaf or does it go further back than that ?

Is their dream of Independence dead in the water ?

Same problem as the Tories, been in power so long discipline starts to break down and they stop caring about voters

 

[Cloud Strife]

As their Conference opens in Aberdeen today perhaps it is an appropriate time to reflect on the current downturn in fortunes they are experiencing ?

It's normal for every political party that has a long run in power. I'm an ex-SNP member (that only left because I moved abroad) and still a big SNP supporter, but it's plain to see that the party is tiring as a whole. There are too many internal feuds, and while it's not as bad as the Tories are internally, it's still clear that the SNP could really do with a break from governing so that they can rest for a while.

But the independence argument hasn't gone away. The opinion polls are still split more or less down the middle, and unless the UK Government finally offers a genuine federal arrangement, it's unlikely that anything will change. I think it's worth noting that Scotland is moving away from the rest of the UK in general, and it may well happen that independence simply happens as a result of a Czechoslovak-style Velvet Divorce rather than through any referendum.

I think one key issue that London still hasn't addressed or even understood is that Scotland of 2023 is not the Scotland of the 1980s. Blocking Scottish legislation is deeply unpopular in Scotland, and it's very possible that Labour may offer a new constitutional settlement where only the Scottish courts will be allowed to block legislation on a devolved matter.

 

[Falcon1200]

The opinion polls are still split more or less down the middle,

How are the Nationalists ever going to change that, given that (as I said above) they were handed, on a plate, the open goals of Brexit, BoJo etc, yet still cannot get above 50%? And that is opinion polls, where people can say what they will without repercussion, unlike an actual referendum where, as we saw in 2014, voters have to consider the results of their actions - and voted accordingly.

Blocking Scottish legislation is deeply unpopular in Scotland

That very much depends on the legislation; The Gender Recognition Act was opposed by many, including even in the SNP, and is that not the one and only item of Scottish legislation which Westminster has actually blocked?

 

[Wynd]

Their dream of independence has always been dead in the water because they have never been able to convince a majority of the Scottish electorate of the benefits of removing Scotland from the UK; Even with every possible advantage handed to them on a plate, ie Brexit, BoJo and then Fizzy Lizzy as PM, opinion polls have rarely showed more than 50% support for independence. And of course the one meaningful poll, in 2014, was utterly and absolutely decisive (not that they accepted it of course).

I have always been prepared to change my vote depending on circumstances at the time, but I will never, ever, vote for the SNP, or for independence, because I simply do not believe their pie in the sky raison d'etre. Nothing they say or do will change that, regardless of who their leader is.

There is so much to address in this thread, but lets start here.

You aren't prepared to change your vote if you can rule out voting for the SNP or Indpenednece in perpetuity. I hope you see the contradiction in your position.

2014 is more a stay of execution than a decisive result that will last for eternity. There has been considerable movement of voters on both sides since.

More importantly, we haven't had a vote since, so its hard to say what way it would go. The UK Gov are putting up a significant fight not to release their own internal polling on the subject. If we take the Ashcroft polling as one marker, the demographics are clear, with the direction of travel over the last decade clear.

The fortunes of the SNP appear to be decoupled from Independence, going by the polling. Which raises an interesting point, was the polling on indy in 2012 deeply wrong? Has it been the case for much of the last century that support for Scotland running itself actually been around 50% for a long time?

If we examine the 2014 result carefully we see native Scots of Scottish decent were in favour by a majority, with those born elsewhere against, which given EU membership was at risk, tipped the balance somewhat.

The origins of the union are mired in controversy, with the inception being more corporate bailout than happy marriage, with the nobility who signed the act bribed, and then short changed with paper when they were promised gold. Darien itself is a byproduct of the Navigation act. The Scottish people were not amused to learn that their landowner aristocracy had sold them out when they learned of it.

The Scotland, indeed the UK, that was voted on in 2014 is long, long gone. The 2014 result was accepted by the Scottish public as we can see, because Scotland is still a UK member nation. Unionists claiming otherwise are plain incorrect. Scotlands people accepted the result, but that doesn't mean they have no right to keep debating the subject.

Falcon, we can see you are a Unionist, but you will have to accept that peer states are wealthier, fairer, happier and significantly more developed than Scotland is, and then ask yourself, what's the difference. You might not like it, but the answer begins and ends with who makes the decisions. The fact that the political parties that are against independence are all based in another country, not Scotland, should tell you everything you need to know.

As for the SNP, parties rise and fall, its as old as time. Long before the SNP a huge number of Scotlands people believed in running their own country, and it will remain so regardless of the next electoral cycle. It's a fact we all need to accept.

We can of course debate the direction of travel and the fortunes of those who oppose or believe in the cause, but the SNP are only one part of a story that's over 800 years old.

The most important point is of course one of the most elusive.

If the UK state is so confident, and Unionsts so sure of the value of UK membership, and yet the SNP keep getting elected, why are we not having a re-run of the 2014 referendum? A lot has changed. If the UK is what Scotland wants, then why don't we ask Scotland to speak? Why have we had a Supreme Court ruling that clarifies the people of Scotland are not entitled to ask themselves a question regarding their own future?

We can't really call that a Union, and certainly not one of equals.

The UK likes to talk a lot about rule of law, democracy, legitimacy, but when it comes to Scotland, it's a very different position. Mandate? Whats a mandate?

At the last election Unionists couldn't even answer the question, what is the method that Scotland could become an independent state by, if not a referendum?

 

[Blindtraveler]

I'm going to come in here with something very controversial but I think a lesson that we have learned very much the hard way with brexit, any referendum result should be 65% in favor or nothing, just getting it over the line to even 50% is not decisive enough for me and I think if you asked a lot of the voting public they would say something similar.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm going to come in here with something very controversial but I think a lesson that we have learned very much the hard way with brexit, any referendum result should be 65% in favor or nothing, just getting it over the line to even 50% is not decisive enough for me and I think if you asked a lot of the voting public they would say something similar.

There's certainly some argument for requiring some kind of super-majority for referendum measures that imply some kind of disruptive change, as compared to keeping the status quo - since the change is typically a leap into the unknown where you don't really know how it'll work out, whereas everyone usually knows what the status quo involves. We've seen almost identical arguments there for both the 2014 Scottish and the 2016 Brexit referenda. However there are also dangers with doing it that way. As an example, I wonder how people would feel if we had - say - a referendum to introduce proportional representation at Westminster, and 52% voted yes to the reform - but the measure still got defeated because of a requirement for a supermajority for it to pass? Or a real-life example: In 2012 in Los Angeles, there was a referendum to implement a 0.5% sales tax in order to fund public transport projects. The result was 66% YES, 34% NO - yet despite that huge majority, it was still defeated(!) because the requirement was for a 2/3 YES vote. That feels completely wrong to me.

Maybe, for major constitutional changes (like Scottish independence, or hypothetically - electoral reform) rather than a supermajority, the ideal is, after a YES to an initial vote about the principle, to have a separate referendum to approve the details?

 

[Speed43125]

The origins of the union are mired in controversy, with the inception being more corporate bailout than happy marriage, with the nobility who signed the act bribed, and then short changed with paper when they were promised gold. Darien itself is a byproduct of the Navigation act. The Scottish people were not amused to learn that their landowner aristocracy had sold them out when they learned of it.

All true I suppose if we're examining the period 1707-1727. But if you fast forward to say the 1740s, the Scottish economy had picked itself up in terms of competition from English manufactured goods and realigned itself with the Empire it had gained access to. Let's not forget Scotland on the whole benefited enormously and participated very much above its weight in the Empire and opportunities brought by Union. At times Scotland is incorrectly likened to Ireland, but to be clear, Scotland does not have a history of economic exploitation, on the contrary, it tended to be the Scots exploiting other colonial territories.

If the UK state is so confident, and Unionsts so sure of the value of UK membership, and yet the SNP keep getting elected, why are we not having a re-run of the 2014 referendum

This particular line was something repeatedly spouted by the Russians and the likes of their state run media in the light of the 2016 Scottish Elections and is I think disingenuous. That election was fought with the acceptance of Scotland remaining in the Union and various extra devolved powers being granted. I would strongly caution against the disruptive forces of Scottish independence in the current geo-political climate in Europe and the North Atlantic.

I would agree the UK government is being deliberately dismissive (to say the least) on Scottish independence, but it's hardly inaccurate to point out the SNP has never had a majority of the votes as Falcon keeps doing.

On the whole my view is simply likely a slightly old fashioned EU idea of countries boundaries and borders gradually reducing rather than added to over time. Much though that boat has sailed for now.

 

[Wynd]

All true I suppose if we're examining the period 1707-1727. But if you fast forward to say the 1740s, the Scottish economy had picked itself up in terms of competition from English manufactured goods and realigned itself with the Empire it had gained access to. Let's not forget Scotland on the whole benefited enormously and participated very much above its weight in the Empire and opportunities brought by Union. At times Scotland is incorrectly likened to Ireland, but to be clear, Scotland does not have a history of economic exploitation, on the contrary, it tended to be the Scots exploiting other colonial territories.

This particular line was something repeatedly spouted by the Russians and the likes of their state run media in the light of the 2016 Scottish Elections and is I think disingenuous. That election was fought with the acceptance of Scotland remaining in the Union and various extra devolved powers being granted. I would strongly caution against the disruptive forces of Scottish independence in the current geo-political climate in Europe and the North Atlantic.

I would agree the UK government is being deliberately dismissive (to say the least) on Scottish independence, but it's hardly inaccurate to point out the SNP has never had a majority of the votes as Falcon keeps doing.

On the whole my view is simply likely a slightly old fashioned EU idea of countries boundaries and borders gradually reducing rather than added to over time. Much though that boat has sailed for now.

Ah, but 1746, among others, but yes Scotland did eventually get in to the groove, but this is largely through the significant miliary actions and forces that eventually brought rebellion to heel. Not to mention acts of parliament.

An enthusistic participant indeed, let no one deny the Scottish influence in Empire. Its extensive.

The exploitation argument is more nuanced, but, the evidence on that is fragmented. Its not the same as the irish story, but there are significant energy flows, as one example. Both oil and electricity.

That 51% and above argument in an election is ground il have to conceeed, but it also undermines the brexit argument a bit in the same breath.

Should indy parties get over that line at an election, 50/1/2% or more of votes, not seats, we will have to revisit the democratic mandate piece.

Borders, Scotland would be putting up 1 with the intent of dropping 27, as an independnet EU memeber state. It will be the most contentious point if we do revisit the question again.

 

[Speed43125]

Ah, but 1746, among others, but yes Scotland did eventually get in to the groove, but this is largely through the significant miliary actions and forces that eventually brought rebellion to heel. Not to mention acts of parliament.

Famously there were more Scots fighting against the Jacobite uprising in 1745/6 than those fighting for it. 1715 or 1719 though you are quite correct were definitely drive by a sense of the failure of Union.

The big beneficiary to Union in the early days was obviously Glasgow, not only allowed non-clandestine access to English colonies, but also benefited from a systemic underreporting or blind eye turning to the value of imported goods continuing as late as the 1760s.

it also undermines the brexit argument a bit in the same breath.

As it should!

 

[Falcon1200]

You aren't prepared to change your vote if you can rule out voting for the SNP or Indpenednece in perpetuity. I hope you see the contradiction in your position.

What contradiction? It is perfectly possible to change one's vote, just not to a party with whose fundamental aims one disagrees! I have, since first voting in 1979, given my cross to the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems, depending on circumstances at the time, but for reasons already explained I will never vote for the SNP or Alba (or for that matter the Communist or Monster Raving Loony Parties, for example, either).

Borders, Scotland would be putting up 1 with the intent of dropping 27, as an independnet EU memeber state.

Only trouble being that that one border accounts for what, around 66% of Scotland's trade? Does no-one see the ultimate contradiction in being so desperate to rejoin a 40-year old union with which, among other things, we have no no land border, common currency or (mostly) language that leaving a 300-year old union with so much shared is somehow going to be better?

It will be the most contentious point if we do revisit the question again.

It certainly would be very contentious, and I would say unworkable.

 

[Wynd]

What contradiction? It is perfectly possible to change one's vote, just not to a party with whose fundamental aims one disagrees! I have, since first voting in 1979, given my cross to the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems, depending on circumstances at the time, but for reasons already explained I will never vote for the SNP or Alba (or for that matter the Communist or Monster Raving Loony Parties, for example, either).



Only trouble being that that one border accounts for what, around 66% of Scotland's trade? Does no-one see the ultimate contradiction in being so desperate to rejoin a 40-year old union with which, among other things, we have no no land border, common currency or (mostly) language that leaving a 300-year old union with so much shared is somehow going to be better?



It certainly would be very contentious, and I would say unworkable.

On a constitutional basis, you won't change your vote. You are a Unionist.

England really isn't in a position to be sabotaging more trade relationships, has Brexit taught Whitehall nothing?!

Its not unworkable, there are good examples near us geographically, but any increase in complexity will be contentious. I wouldn't shout too loudly about the 66% figure as that's not a ringing endorsement of the Union.

 

[oldman]

The Scottish people were not amused to learn that their landowner aristocracy had sold them out when they learned of it.

I thought that the various Jacobite rebellions were led by landowning aristocrats, using their feudal powers to get their tenants to fight for them. There was support and opposition to the union at different levels of society, but the mass of the people went largely unheard, as in most countries at the time, and I doubt if anyone knows whether they were amused.

If we examine the 2014 result carefully we see native Scots of Scottish decent were in favour by a majority

What is a native Scot of Scottish descent? How many Scottish grannies do I need? Given that population growth in Scotland depends on net immigration, they must be a diminishing share of the population. According to the dear ex-leader: 'it doesn't matter where you come from, if Scotland is your home and you live here and you feel you have a stake in the country, you are Scottish' (2017), but for many blood-and-soil nationalists that is not enough.

 

[Wynd]

I thought that the various Jacobite rebellions were led by landowning aristocrats, using their feudal powers to get their tenants to fight for them. There was support and opposition to the union at different levels of society, but the mass of the people went largely unheard, as in most countries at the time, and I doubt if anyone knows whether they were amused.


What is a native Scot of Scottish descent? How many Scottish grannies do I need? Given that population growth in Scotland depends on net immigration, they must be a diminishing share of the population. According to the dear ex-leader: 'it doesn't matter where you come from, if Scotland is your home and you live here and you feel you have a stake in the country, you are Scottish' (2017), but for many blood-and-soil nationalists that is not enough.

There is documented evidence of widespread rioting upon the signing of the act of union. Copies of the articles of union were burned in the streets.

Do not think I am some blood and soil nationalist for pointing out what was acertained when the results were studued. IIRC, the definiton was those born in Scotland.

I agree wholeheartedly agree on NS/HY/AS definition of what makes someone Scottish, as do the vast majority of Scotlands citizens. The zenophobic knee jerk distrust of "others" doesnt appear to be something Scotland is too badly afflicted with. Probably a good time to point out there are huge numbers of English born Scottish citizens who are pro independence.

 

[Falcon1200]

Probably a good time to point out there are huge numbers of English born Scottish citizens who are pro independence.

And at least one (me) who is not!

 

[oldman]

I agree wholeheartedly agree on NS/HY/AS definition of what makes someone Scottish, as do the vast majority of Scotlands citizens. The zenophobic knee jerk distrust of "others" doesnt appear to be something Scotland is too badly afflicted with. Probably a good time to point out there are huge numbers of English born Scottish citizens who are pro independence.

From your posting it is obvious that you care a great deal about Scottish history, language and so on. That sounds a bit blood and soil to me, and indeed how can you have nationalism without a sense of historico-cultural identity? Without it Scotland is just the northern part of the island of Britain.

But also you espouse the party line in which Scottishness is based on residence and 'having a stake', in a Scotland where historico-cultural identity is being diluted by increasing diversity of origins. I guess there be a stake-test for citizenship, which you will automatically fail if you say the word British.

Recently the crass Yousaf paraded some Ukrainian refugees as 'New Scots' for the launch of his citizenship plan. So because they happened to come to Britain rather than some other European country, and then happened to come to Scotland, and although they hope their stay is temporary, they are already Scots. You can't imagine people in other countries appropriating refugees in this tawdry way.

I take your vast majority and huge numbers with a pinch of salt.

 

[Wynd]

From your posting it is obvious that you care a great deal about Scottish history, language and so on. That sounds a bit blood and soil to me, and indeed how can you have nationalism without a sense of historico-cultural identity? Without it Scotland is just the northern part of the island of Britain.

But also you espouse the party line in which Scottishness is based on residence and 'having a stake', in a Scotland where historico-cultural identity is being diluted by increasing diversity of origins. I guess there be a stake-test for citizenship, which you will automatically fail if you say the word British.

Recently the crass Yousaf paraded some Ukrainian refugees as 'New Scots' for the launch of his citizenship plan. So because they happened to come to Britain rather than some other European country, and then happened to come to Scotland, and although they hope their stay is temporary, they are already Scots. You can't imagine people in other countries appropriating refugees in this tawdry way.

I take your vast majority and huge numbers with a pinch of salt.

I do care, but predominantly about accuracy. The prevailing story about how Scotland came to be in the Union is under told-and deeply mis-understood, even to this day. This shapes so much of the discourse around how Scotland is viewed and treated.

Espousing this does not make me a "blood and soil" type and frankly, you need to do better to distinguish between the two positions, as at some point, you may insult the wrong person, inadvertently or otherwise.

I disagree on the dilution argument, which in itself is a poor choice of adjective. Scotland's culture and languages appear, to me and many others, to be having a renaissance, with more media, content, and coverage than I can remember in my lifetime to date. It appears that new citizens to Scotland are embracing the culture and languages, largely. There are the archetypal morons who complain about Gaelic road signs yet have no issue in other countries, but they will always find something to complain about.

I don’t agree on the British piece. If Scotland does become a self-governing state, as in Ireland, accommodations will have to be made for existing UK citizens. A new state must draw on all its citizens, and so must work to harmonise accordingly.

Vast majority, well, I’ve never met anyone who disagrees that if you feel Scottish then you are Scottish. I don’t associate with blood and soil types though. Conversely, I have met, and meet, countless English citizens who identify that they either are Scottish or have Scottish decent. I embrace people’s pride in their linage, whatever that may be. Who makes me, or anyone else a gatekeeper of the culture, language, or identiy? Its over a thousand years old, no one can really lay claim to it, despite how much they may try. This is perhaps one of the objections that many have to independence, that it represents a threat to what it means to call yourself British, but that really is a whole different thread.

Embracing people who want to settle and put their efforts in to building the nation has been a one way bet for the last 200 years. Look at America. Embraced immigrants, became the most powerful state on earth. Ireland has demonstrated similar success on a smaller scale. Scotland would be no different. Attracting workers is a fundamentally important policy for economic success in this competitive world. Its not a party line, its a self evident predeterminat fact that in order to have an economically successful state, you need to attract people who will put nose to grindstone. If those people arrive from elsewhwere, with significnatly worse conditions, and they are willing to work hard, why not embrace them? What right would I, or anyone have, to say they are not Scottish?

Raises that awful cliche that is doing the rounds, the one about people with certain complexions, being repeatedly asked, "...yes, you said you were born in London, but where are you really from?"

Ugh. Abhorrent.