FREEDOM!!!! [4]

As for being fed-up, I think politics has never been so interesting, its barking mad, but its certainly not boring.

{{ It's barking mad but it also creates huge amounts of uncertainty, and that makes getting an independence vote harder I'd say. People dont like uncertainty, they like what they know. And what they know is already being thrown up in the air, so adding more potential uncertainty to things is probably not going to help.

The SNP need to have everything ready to be answered and spelled out clearly. They cant get caught out on stuff like currency again for example (their previous policy was fine and would have worked fine, but allowed a door for Westminster to say they would not allow it - even though they couldn't actually legally do that- but it was enough to cause real concern for folk which was all the aim of it, as not knowing what currency we would have, if we have then to take up the euro etc was not good). }}

Agreed, although I'd say that is more an example of how common sense measrues were vilified by Project Fear. There are countries in the world that use the euro but are not in the euro-zone. There are countries in the world that use the dollar, but are certainly not part of the US. To dollarize is even a term in economics.

I'd also say that some of the work you mention has been done though:

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/05/scotland-s-unionists-attack-snp-s-growth-commission-report-their-peril
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-C4Ngp_7a0&app=desktop

As the opposition is currently a dearth of real proposals, I'd say the Scottish people should look for the positive in finding solutions and projects for their country among themselves and that you are better off that way, especially all things considered. But then I would always say that.

I say we Dollarise. I can just picture their faces in Westminster, as tourism to Scotland increases in magnatudes from the US.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{

The SNP need to have everything ready to be answered and spelled out clearly. They cant get caught out on stuff like currency again for example (their previous policy was fine and would have worked fine, but allowed a door for Westminster to say they would not allow it - even though they couldn't actually legally do that- but it was enough to cause real concern for folk which was all the aim of it, as not knowing what currency we would have, if we have then to take up the euro etc was not good). }}

The SNPs weakness is either having very little experience in dealing with the established status quo of Westminster or underestimating what Westminster will do to stop the SNP dead in their tracks. Since in general the masses get their news from tabloids or TV headlines, they will believe what they see. The SNP  not only have to win fights in Westminster but have to battle the media's portrayal of them, while at the same time not getting drawn into discussions on distraction based topics. I don't believe that the SNP have the political savvy to combat Westminster. Nor do I believe that they know how to control an interview so it can't be misconstrued by selective editing.

There is a certain perception from some people that the SNP are really just a bunch of nutty old folk, who love saying how great scotland is and wave flags all the time. Much in a way similar to many of us see America's obsession with flag waving, or the English doing it for the Queen et cetera. As Scot's we generally don't go in for that sort of thing. So when local SNP supporters set up a 'YES shop' littered with badly made info boards and propaganda, flags adorning the window. It kind looks lame, and like the SNP are a bunch muppets.  I'm not opposed to these 'YES shops' but it seems completely unorganised, with no centralisation, no information hub, no standardised window displays. It's these simple things, that would help lift the perception of the SNP.

Since it was mentioned earlier, this is my predictions regarding the money grab:

If the grab is allowed - (I suspect it will be challenged in court)

Once the hand over is complete ie the date that any funding in areas now in the control of Westminster, there will be 'transitional period' where we will be told that, yes some payments are lower than previously but as with all things, it all needs to be worked out properly.

The media will run with the SNPs incompetence in dealing with the handover.

The SNP has a choice. Bolster the payments with money it has control over, or not. If they bolster it means money from elsewhere is taken or they increase taxes. Not only that, many areas won't even know it's been bolstered as all they care about is that after the change they are still getting the same amount of cash and if they are getting the same amount of cash it must be because Westminster is giving it to them If they don't, the people will still blame the SNP for it, even though it's now controlled by Westminster.

With the media war on full attack, and as general public perception of the SNP declining Westminster will continue to strip Holywood of its powers, very quickly. They will essentially cripple Holyrood's governing abilities.

I would expect to see the ability to call referendums removed with expedience. Or more likely change the ways in which they can be called to make it legally impossible to call if Westminster doesn't want it.

Remember the 'transitional period' I mentioned above? You didn't think I'd forgotten about that? Well, I can guarantee that Westminster will. Much in the same way that the EU farming grants for Scotland were spent in England, so too will be the money no longer in Holyrood's control.

I may have forgot something, Petty might remember (hahaha aye right) though. Can't actually see the screen properly to check this, as a migraine has kicked in and have lovely ziggy lines dancing about.

Nagual wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{

The SNP need to have everything ready to be answered and spelled out clearly. They cant get caught out on stuff like currency again for example (their previous policy was fine and would have worked fine, but allowed a door for Westminster to say they would not allow it - even though they couldn't actually legally do that- but it was enough to cause real concern for folk which was all the aim of it, as not knowing what currency we would have, if we have then to take up the euro etc was not good). }}

The SNPs weakness is either having very little experience in dealing with the established status quo of Westminster or underestimating what Westminster will do to stop the SNP dead in their tracks. Since in general the masses get their news from tabloids or TV headlines, they will believe what they see. The SNP  not only have to win fights in Westminster but have to battle the media's portrayal of them, while at the same time not getting drawn into discussions on distraction based topics. I don't believe that the SNP have the political savvy to combat Westminster. Nor do I believe that they know how to control an interview so it can't be misconstrued by selective editing.

There is a certain perception from some people that the SNP are really just a bunch of nutty old folk, who love saying how great scotland is and wave flags all the time. Much in a way similar to many of us see America's obsession with flag waving, or the English doing it for the Queen et cetera. As Scot's we generally don't go in for that sort of thing. So when local SNP supporters set up a 'YES shop' littered with badly made info boards and propaganda, flags adorning the window. It kind looks lame, and like the SNP are a bunch muppets.  I'm not opposed to these 'YES shops' but it seems completely unorganised, with no centralisation, no information hub, no standardised window displays. It's these simple things, that would help lift the perception of the SNP.

Ok, here's the thing. It is not about the SNP. It is about whether you want a country where you make your own decision, or whether you want to live in a compound nation, where you can be overruled on any point, NHS, EU membership etc., by 55m english people. Either Scottish people deal with the very real issues of Scotland, or they will be constantly distracted by matters that should not matter to them. By the UK meltdown, by brexit, by self-defeating austerity etc.

I'm norwegian, we have been there, we call our 600 years of danish rule the 600 year night, we only ultimately got a university in Oslo because the Danish were scared of a rebellion. When we first thought of independence after the napoleonic wars our best and brightest thought it was a good idea to declare independence and put the danish crown prince on the throne. It takes time to get out of such an extended imposed mindset. Norway was lucky, with timing, and with a close scrutiny of geopolitics. We picked our moment, we made it, and no one wants to go back to being de facto sweedish or danish. It is the same with Scotland. You need someone with the sense of timing, and geopolitical nouse. But once it is done, however it might feel now, afterwards, in an independent Scotland, no one will ever want to go back. It is a necessarily difficult moment of separation, with all it entails. But honestly Scotland cannot be itself, make its own decisions, know what it is, face its own peculiar issues, until its people embrace their chance to be free. To be itself, and themself.

Independence is not about breaking up old bonds, about separation, about destruction. It is about giving the world a new voice, the scottish voice. About giving the people of Scotland their own voice in the world. In all matters, for good and bad. And I for one can't wait to hear it.

{{ Of Nagual and I, surprisingly you may find I am the more optimistic of us about the chances of a future independent Scotland, and would wish one for all the reasons you just gave Blue.

However Naguals view is not that he would disagree with a word of your sentiment, but his crabbit meter is pointing to red when it comes to the chances of it happening, believing simply that Westminster will never allow such an outcome to happen for so long as Scotland is important as a resource and strategic base of operations. And that they will stoop to any level, lying, deceit, bribery, corruption, use of the secret service against political opponents, slander, you name it they will do it, to ensure independence never happens. }}

they have nothing to gain from granting independence. I'm not sure how Canada got loose.

{{ And a lot to lose - Scotland is the main training ground for the armed forces of all stripes, its the main NATO training area in the UK too. We have the UK nuclear fleet and all sorts of radar and listening posts dotted all over.
We have 3/4 of the UK fishing waters and 90% of the oil reserves. The bulk of the UK Hydro electric and most of the wind and wave energy, and we send huge amounts of water south to England who suffer regular drought periods in the summer.
We are innovators and among the leaders in Europe on green energy and various other science areas, and of course we have some of the worlds leading and largest tech companies (including Rockstar North home of the Grand Theft Auto series).
And that's before you get to the export industry in food and drink and tourism which makes up the backbone of our marketable goods.

England has much to lose if Scotland becomes independent, and not much, if anything to gain by it. }}

Nagual wrote:
I may have forgot something, Petty might remember (hahaha aye right) though. Can't actually see the screen properly to check this, as a migraine has kicked in and have lovely ziggy lines dancing about.

I get those too, it starts with flashy bits which get bigger and ziggier until I cant read.  I get them when I have been in a hot humid atmosphere, like Petty's kilt shed, I know he has to keep them in the garden away from naked flames.
I find that cold windy air helps to stop the ziggy lines. But theres lots of that in Scotland

{{ Former First Minister and Labour leader Henry Mcleish is proposing the Scottish Parliament goes fully PR for electing MSP's (at the moment its a quasi first past the post and list system.

Sounds good eh? More representation, more democracy.

Sadly no, this a a cheap ruse to prevent another Independence referendum taking place and an example of the sort of tactics we can expect from Unionist parties.

Bear in mind Labour set up the Scottish Parliament believing the current voting system would safeguard against any one party ever having a majority- specifically believing it would prevent the SNP ever having a majority and therefore being able to pass legislation for a referendum.
That failed when the SNP smashed the voting records and got a majority and got their vote through for the referendum as a result.

Now the Unionists want to stop that happening again - and this proposal to change to full PR is a way of doing so.

In McLeish's own words-

'what that would do in my view is give you a parliament that would never have an overall majority. That would be one box that I would gratefully tick.'

So how is that an underhand trick- well if no party can get a majority, and you only have 1 party standing for independence, then they can never get a majority to pass the legislation to hold a referendum.
You could have the position where the SNP get voted in over and over as overwhelmingly the largest party every time, but in such a system the Unionist parties, without ever having to win an election, would always be in the majority on voting down any referendum bill. It would make it all but impossible for it to happen again. No matter how the people voted. }}

What's this PR system that would not allow a majority? How does that work?

"You could have a PR system that could retain the constituencies, but possibly have two members but elected on a different basis what that would do in my view is give you a parliament that would never have an overall majority. "- Mcleish

{{Thats the full proposal as reported by BBC Scotland. No idea what this 'differnt basis' would be- it just seems a way of diluting the numbers for any one party, hence ensuring it unlikely anyoneparty would gain an overall majority. As legislation needs to be voted through the parliament, if the ruling party is a minority govenrment (as the SNP one currently is) then they require other parties to vote with them. At the moment they only need a handful of votes from independents or greens to back their position to have a majority in favour, as they just fell short of a majority last time.
This plan seems to be geared towards ensuring that collectively the Unionist parties combined will always be able to outvote the SNP, and that they wont have enough support to outvote the Unionist parties even with smaller parties when they are in power as the government. The SNP can table legislation for a referendum, they can stand at elections on having one, but it can be blocked every time under this proposal. }}

Bluebottle wrote:

Independence is not about breaking up old bonds, about separation, about destruction. It is about giving the world a new voice, the scottish voice. About giving the people of Scotland their own voice in the world. In all matters, for good and bad. And I for one can't wait to hear it.

100% agree. In an independent Scotland, I will happily vote for any party that I think has a good plan. Scottish Conservative, Scottish Labour or whatever they choose to call themselves currently only do what their Westminster bosses tell them and as such are not worth listening to (imho). In an Indi Scotland, that may change as they are free to stand on their own ideas.

I don't care if the SNP or Labour or Greens or Torys run an Indi Scotland. They would all be working for and in Scotland, it may not be a bed of roses but it's our bed, and we know where it is.

My personal view is the independence would drive forward trade in the north of England and in Scotland. We would see small to medium business doing well as they sought to fill various niches that appear. Westminster doesn't want that in case it moves it's base of voting power away from the SE.

Good, just playing the role of the anxious older sibling offering encouragement.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Of Nagual and I, surprisingly you may find I am the more optimistic of us about the chances of a future independent Scotland, and would wish one for all the reasons you just gave Blue.

However Naguals view is not that he would disagree with a word of your sentiment, but his crabbit meter is pointing to red when it comes to the chances of it happening, believing simply that Westminster will never allow such an outcome to happen for so long as Scotland is important as a resource and strategic base of operations. And that they will stoop to any level, lying, deceit, bribery, corruption, use of the secret service against political opponents, slander, you name it they will do it, to ensure independence never happens. }}

You might find this paper interesting, particularly from p. 68 onwards:

"State practice provides support for Catalonia’s referendum. A surprising number of sub-state entities have exercised the right to decide their political will by holding independence-related referenda. Between 1905 and 1991, 52 sub-state entities held independence-related referenda.In addition, since 1991, 53 independence-related referenda have been held, for a total of 105 independence-related referenda since 1905. There are four additional referenda scheduled to happen by the end of 2019. State practice demonstrates that many of these sub-state entities and national states negotiate the terms, conditions, and effects of independence referenda both before and after those referenda are held."
https://www.unige.ch/gsi/files/9315/0461/7440/CATALONIAS_LEGITIMATE_RIGHT_DECIDE.pdf

It is a strong scholarly report on the position Scotland would find itself in if caught between the "rock and the hard place" of english deaf ears and unilaterality written by a group of international law experts, including the director of the International Law and International Organization Department of the Law Faculty at the University of Geneva, at the second seat of the UN.

In reality, if the Scots stay firm, peaceful and democratic about their independence bid, there is little the UK can do to stop it but use force. And I don't think neither the Scottish people are prepared to accept that. Or that the UK government could allow itself the excesses of a country like Spain, whose deep state structure, including the courts are still mired in the 40 year fascist dictatorship of Franco and the failure to deal with this past in the flawed transition to democracy.

Oh no, so now Spain has a Deep State?

{{ This sort of thinking does my head in!

The Scottish Parliament-is being criticised for not being diverse enough!

'Diversity among the Scottish Parliament's elected representatives has "gone backwards" in some ways, MSPs have warned...The parliament has also elected only four MSPs from ethnic minority backgrounds in the past two decades... "We've never had a black woman MSP, that's never happened in 20 years. In some ways we've gone backwards."

So we need a black woman to tick the box! Now I'm all for anyone who wants to stand having a go and getting a fair shake of the stick, but what does the census say about what percentage of the population is black or ethnic?

'8.19% of people living in Scotland were white, mostly (88.09%) white Scottish. South Asian was the next largest non-white ethnic group recorded, at 1.09% of the population, followed by Chinese (0.32%), Mixed (0.25%) and Black (0.16%).'

Yeah so out of that 0.16% of blacks in Scotland, how many are women? how many of them want to be an MSP? Or have involvement in politics?

You cant just shove someone in there because they are right colour for you to feel good about yourself. People should get their on merit, regardless of race or gender.

Complaining the Scottish Parliament isn't full of ethnic representation is to misrepresent the country, and surely the job of the Parliament is to be representative of the country?

I mean one of those complaining is Ana Sarawar- who is of course from an ethnic minority- so it as not like we dont have representation, most of our party leaders are women too. }}

{{ Remember during the Indie referendum Westminster warned Scotland that we could not rely on oil revenue as the oil was running out and would at best sustain maybe another decade?

Well today's headlines-

'Applications open for new North Sea oil and gas exploration.
There are 768 blocks or part-blocks on offer across the main producing areas of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). '

And oh it turns out its not running out at all and even just the deposits we know about is enough to sustain the industry at full whack for at leats the next 20 years.

20 years might not sound long but if you take a look to Norway, they discovered oil in the 70's same as Scotland, twenty years later they had built up a substantial oil fund.
Scotland could of course do the same, except we have no say in it. And remain the only country in the history of the world to have discovered oil and got poorer. As before all the money will go straight to the Treasury and be spent on the south of England and we will never see it again. Same as the last 40 odd years worth of our oil that's disappeared and seen little to no return in Scotland's economy.

This is the real reason England is so keen to keep hold of us- we've been bankrolling England on oil money for almost half a century and they dont want to give it up and Westminster's own internal reports show that an independent Scotland would be one of the wealthiest in Europe.

These tow maps illustrate the issue well.

This first one is a map of which parts of the UK are generating the wealth.



As you can see the central belt in Scotland generates as much as the south of England, the north east (where all the oil production is) is among the most productive parts f the country.

But if you look at where the money in the UK ends up its a very different map.



Shocking isnt it?! All our money has been bleed out of Scotland and fond itself in England! The real reaosn Westminster fights so hard to prevent Scottish Independence is that the English establishment have been lying for decades about who is paying for who. And the English populace have long since been convinced England subsidises Scotland that the idea its the other way round is unacceptable to them. }}

Once one group gets their fingers in a good thing they won't give it up without force.

{{ This is interesting.

Recent polling, since Boris became PM, has shown a constant trend for those in favour of independence, not by much about 52% to 48% in favour, but enough, and it will probably grow I suspect as things get worse over Brexit.

Now for Scotland to hold a second referendum it must first get permission to do so from Parliament.
Up to this point the Unionist parties: Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems have all stuck to the same Unionist tune and line, that they would not grant the Scottish Parliament the right to hold another vote.

Until today.

'A future Labour government would not block a second Scottish independence referendum, according to shadow chancellor John McDonnell..."It will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people to decide that," the senior Labour MP said.
"They will take a view about whether they want another referendum. Nicola Sturgeon said by late next year or the beginning of 2021."
He added: "We would not block something like that. We would let the Scottish people decide. That's democracy...The Scottish Parliament will come to a considered view on that and they will submit that to the government and the English Parliament itself.
If the Scottish people decide they want a referendum that's for them...There are other views within the party but that's our view."  - BBC

Note he says there 'that's OUR view', as the most senior Shadow Cabinet member to have spoken on the issue that 'our' presumably has to be taken as meaning 'the parties' official position.

But when he says there are other views that is rather understating it, here's another view-

'In March, Richard Leonard told the BBC's Sunday Politics Scotland that if Labour took power in Westminster the party would refuse to grant a Section 30 order.
He added: "What we said in the manifesto at the 2017 election was that there is no case for, and we would not support, a second independence referendum."

Who you might ask is Richard Leonard? (plenty of Scots would ask that too!) well he is the Scottish Labour Leader.
This has not gone unnoticed by Unionist supporting Scottish Labour MP's.

'His comments were condemned by his party colleague Ian Murray, the MP for Edinburgh South.
"These are utterly irresponsible comments from John McDonnell that betray our party's values," he said.'

And Unionist opposition leaders are likewise not happy at this complete undermining of their position in Scotland as Unionists.

'Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie described Mr McDonnell's comments as "astonishingly irresponsible".
"It's bad enough with Boris Johnson bungling on Brexit and independence but to have the Labour Party's chancellor piling in makes it a whole lot worse," '

Sturgeon of course is presumably pleased as punch, independence is ahead in the polls, Labour seem to have just shift their position on granting a 2nd referendum, she commentated -

'Nicola Sturgeon said the Shadow Chancellor's position was "basic democracy". '

before she added what is probably the real reason for this unexpected shift from Westminster Labour, something else the recent polling has thrown up-

'it made "political sense" as polls suggested 40% of Labour voters support independence. ' }}

{{ The fallout from this continues, as they attempt to patch up the obvious major difference in policy that exists between Scottish Labour and Westminster Labour on this.

First up Leonard, leader of the Scottish Labour did the press rounds saying he had spoken to the shadow chancellor about it-

' he had spoken to Mr McDonnell to "put to him the very clear view that the people of Scotland do not want a second independence referendum and also to remind him that the last independence referendum was supposed to be once in a generation".
Mr Leonard added: "I was elected 18 months ago directly by the members of the Scottish Labour Party, and one of the parts of the platform I stood on was clear opposition to a second independence referendum.
"So I think it's pretty clear where I stand, it's pretty clear where the membership of the Scottish Labour Party stand and that's the view that we'll be communicating.
"We will be doing everything we can do to make sure it is in the Labour manifesto for the general election, whenever it comes".

He was also asked about recent polling, given his previous argument against a 2nd referendum rested on there being no notable shift in public opinion and no majority in polls to hold one-  except recent polling shows a majority in favour of both a 2nd referendum and of independence. So he as adopted in response a new, vaguer position to cower behind!

'Mr Leonard said his stance on a second referendum would only change if the will of the Scottish people was shown to be "demonstrably" different from 2014'

Whatever qualifies as 'demonstrably different.

And officially Labour (Westminster) are not denying what the Shadow Chancellor said, or that its their policy, what they did say was this-

'A Labour spokesman later insisted that Mr McDonnell was "clearly not advocating a second independence referendum" and had "made clear the huge benefit a UK Labour government will bring for the people of Scotland".

Which isn't a denial of anything and wont please Scottish Unionist parties.

A Scottish Labour MP said "This is an issue that is in the grasp of the devolved Scottish Labour Party, and that should be the policy that holds".

Which is the general sentiment in Scottish Labour party ranks it seems, though the polling showing 40% of labour voters in favour of independence means it might not be the case at grass roots level. Creating an interesting dilemma for Scottish Labour, especially if calls for independence grow- its feasible they could end in the weird position of holding an unpopular no referendum position in Scotland that's also opposed by their own main party at Westminster.

For Ruth Davidson its a chance to rerun Cameron's scare campaign when he painted the prospect of a Labour/SNP pact as the evil bogeyman.

'Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson claimed that Mr McDonnell was paving the way for a "pact with the SNP in order to parachute Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10".
She added: "The fact is this - Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell would happily sell Scotland down the river if they thought it could give them a sniff of power.
"That is a rank betrayal of the two million Scots - including thousands of Labour voters - who voted to stay part of the UK."

But its Scottish Labour who have really been left in flames on this one, especially as they clearly had no idea this was coming and were totally out the loop on Westminster thinking regards the SNP and a 2nd referendum. They had already lost a mass of support and slipped to fourth place behind SNP, Lib Dem and even Ruth's Tories, and people have long given up knowing what they are supposed to stand for, the Union was one of the few things they had a solid position on. Now they been holed beneath the waterline on that too, by their own side!}}

{{ Labours meltdown between the positions of Scottish Labour and Westminster Labour is hitting meltdown!

The Scottish Labour Party has issued a statement which criticises the national party-

"We deplore any attempts to undermine the official policy position of the Scottish Labour Party and we express serious concerns about an apparent change in Labour's position on a matter of vital importance to the future of Scotland and of the Scottish Labour Party itself.
Scottish party policy is very clear - that is opposition to a second independence referendum.
There is therefore an urgent need for the UK party leadership to engage constructively with the Scottish party leadership on the issue of the party's stance on the future of Scotland.
"We are clear Labour's position on Scotland's future is a decision for Scottish Labour, which the UK party must accept.
We expect all Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs to vote in accordance with party policy."

But the Shadow Chancellor has replied with-

"I'm not being set up by Nicola Sturgeon to blame the UK government for blocking the will of the Scottish people - that's too trite a political manoeuvre that's been taken on at the moment.
In the situation we're in at the moment, my view is that we will not be blocking a proposal.
The best way forward in all of this is to elect a Labour government. We'll demonstrate what we can do and then I think the Scottish people won't be interested in another referendum.
But if they ever do come back, my view is you can't be in a situation where you block it."

The SNP have described Scottish Labours position as 'increasingly bizarre' sayin gina statement-

"It's hard to think of a time in recent years when they've (Scottish Labour) been more vocal than this week's frenzied backlash to the suggestion that people in Scotland should have a choice over their own future.
The UK leadership recognises that democratic right - why don't Labour in Scotland? Labour's position in Scotland is fundamentally anti-democratic."

So lets wait on the next round! Popcorn anyone? }}}

{{{So lets wait on the next round! Popcorn anyone? }}}

Oh yes, please!
I'm going to need a score card though. If you've got a minute could you remind me of Scottish Labour's percentage of the vote, both historically and now, and how it got this way?