Majority of Scots support independence from UK - YouGov poll

[Pattaya Spotter]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Current polls suggest that around 55% of Scots want independence (A referendum in 2014 resulted in 55% wanting to remain in the UK). Either way, as with the Brexit referendum (52% - 48% in favour of leaving), a sizeable minority is dissatisfied with the result, and this brings no end of problems. Imo referendums cause more problems than they solve.

I would tend to agree...and for such an important question, maybe a super-majority should be required. But however such a vote would go, you're likely to have a sizeable group of people embittered by the result.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[vogie]

9 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I would think it would be better to part of a bigger whole than off by yourself but I just go by what I read in the press (I know, it's often biased) and they reported the recent independence referendum as rather close and now they report polls showing a majority for independence. However, you didn't really answer my question...what's in it for the rest of the UK keeping the Scots in...it is a tiny nation of about 6 million or so people correct?

It's not a case what's in it for the rest of the UK, Scotland is part of the UK, it's like having a belligerent spotty son and thinking, 'you know I could live without that prat of millstone around my neck' and then realising, well he may be a pain in the butt, but he is still my son.

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

It's not a case what's in it for the rest of the UK, Scotland is part of the UK, it's like having a belligerent spotty son and thinking, 'you know I could live without that prat of millstone around my neck' and then realising, well he may be a pain in the butt, but he is still my son.

An interesting analogy...have you tested this with any pro-independence Scots yet? 

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

An interesting analogy...have you tested this with any pro-independence Scots yet? 

Yes, but their warpaint is impregnable.????

[RayC]

43 minutes ago, evadgib said:

After last night's revelations re SNP shenanigans during the Guerning Bullfrog's trial I'm surprised how quiet this board is today.

 

Had it been Boris...????

 

RR, How about starting a new thread?

If you are talking about 'The trial of Alex Salmond', then I thought that it was one of the most pointless programmes ever made.  I did not follow things closely at the time and learnt absolutely nothing new last night.

 

Imo this waste of an hour could be summarised as (1) Politician accused of sexual crimes (and of being a bully) (2) Politician acquitted of crimes. Unproven re bully claim (3) Unsurprisingly, accusers upset at verdict (4) Former colleagues - including current leader - distance themselves from accused while insisting they didn't (5) Other politicians, who have fallen out of favour, have a dig at current leadership. Did I miss anything? The programme was a complete waste of time and resources.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

After last night's revelations re SNP shenanigans during the Guerning Bullfrog's trial I'm surprised how quiet this board is today.

 

As I have said many times, the SNP is (hopefully) the vehicle, not the destination. 

There are rumours of Salmond's possible return to politics through a new independence list-only party; that would be very interesting. 

 

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Had it been Boris...????

 

Had? 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

47 minutes ago, vogie said:

The Scots don't want to leave, it is the SNP and the the painty faced nationalistic followers that are intent on separation from England. The Scots had a vote in 2014 and a huge majority voted to remain within our union and that vote has to last a generation/lifetime and don't let any painty faced nationalist tell you any different.

But unfortunately the multiple lies which were told to convince the (not huge) majority to stick with the union have proven to be worthless. Add to that the Brexit that we overwhelmingly rejected in 2016 and continue to hate, plus the corrupt and incompetent government we overwhelmingly rejected yet is also foisted upon us against our will - time's up and the majority of Scots now see that the being in the UK is to our considerable detriment, and that without its burden life will be so much better. 

[7by7]

28 minutes ago, vogie said:

The Scots don't want to leave, it is the SNP and the the painty faced nationalistic followers that are intent on separation from England. The Scots had a vote in 2014 and a huge majority voted to remain within our union and that vote has to last a generation/lifetime and don't let any painty faced nationalist tell you any different.

 

I am a unionist, but I am also a democrat.

 

The SNP did say during the 2014 campaign that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity. But there is nothing in any law or Act of either the  Holyrood or Westminster Parliaments which says it "has to last a generation."

 

The SNP stated in its manifesto for the May 2016 Scottish Parliament election that a second independence referendum should be held if there was a material change of circumstances, such as the UK leaving the EU. Whilst falling 2 seats short of obtaining an overall majority, the SNP did receive the largest share of the vote and the most seats in that election.

 

As we all know, the EU referendum resulted in a win for Leave, although Scotland voted by a large majority to Remain. That represents a significant change of circumstances to those in 2014.

 

I'm not a great believer in opinion polls; but in the latest poll which actually counts, the 2019 UK General Election, the SNP received 45% of the Scottish votes and won 43 out of the 59 Scottish seats. 

 

If they repeat this success in the Scottish Parliament elections next May, then there can be no democratic reason for refusing the Scots another independence referendum.

 

No matter how many times you refer to the SNP and their supporters as " painty faced nationalistic followers."

[RuamRudy]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

If you are talking about 'The trial of Alex Salmond', then I thought that it was one of the most pointless programmes ever made.  I did not follow things closely at the time and learnt absolutely nothing new last night.

 

Imo this waste of an hour could be summarised as (1) Politician accused of sexual crimes (and of being a bully) (2) Politician acquitted of crimes. Unproven re bully claim (3) Unsurprisingly, accusers upset at verdict (4) Former colleagues - including current leader - distance themselves from accused while insisting they didn't (5) Other politicians, who have fallen out of favour, have a dig at current leadership. Did I miss anything? The programme was a complete waste of time and resources.

Expect much more this sort of smear job. The BBC in Scotland (and the UK) is crammed to the gunwales with unionists. Any and every attempt to smear the cause of independence is seized upon with relish. I can understand why - they will lose a significant amount of funding when Scotland leaves the UK. 

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

But unfortunately the multiple lies which were told to convince the (not huge) majority to stick with the union have proven to be worthless. Add to that the Brexit that we overwhelmingly rejected in 2016 and continue to hate, plus the corrupt and incompetent government we overwhelmingly rejected yet is also foisted upon us against our will - time's up and the majority of Scots now see that the being in the UK is to our considerable detriment, and that without its burden life will be so much better. 

Some of the smaller European countries do quite well on their own...Switzerland, Iceland (again), Liechtenstein, etc. so maybe an independent Scotland can join them. However, there is also the question on how the EU would handle and independent Scotland (would they be grandfathered in or have to apply anew) and whether some countries with restless minorities, like Spain, want to keep Scotland out of the EU to send a message to their restless "nations" of the consequences of independence.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Some of the smaller European countries do quite well on their own...Switzerland, Iceland (again), Liechtenstein, etc. so maybe an independent Scotland can join them. However, there is also the question on how the EU would handle and independent Scotland (would they be grandfathered in or have to apply anew) and whether some countries with restless minorities, like Spain, want to keep Scotland out of the EU to send a message to their restless "nations" of the consequences of independence.

Although not a member state itself, Scotland has been integral to the EU for many years, so it conforms to all EU standards and legislation. While some may be degraded during the Brexit interregnum, I think the challenge of rehabilitating an independent Scotland into the EU mould will be relatively pain free. There was a suggestion previously about grandfathering but I think that is unlikely; all those special exemptions that the UK had won over the years have been let go of. 

 

That said, it is not inevitable that Scotland would seek to rejoin the EU as a full member. There were a relatively small number of Leave voters in the Brexit referendum, and I read that as many as 30% of independence supporters favoured Brexit so nothing about the future is clear at present. 

[evadgib]

26 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Had? 

Boris hasn't been 'up on one' yet but I concede that his (covid-hamstrung) govt has been a bloody disaster lol.

[RayC]

26 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I think the challenge of rehabilitating an independent Scotland into the EU mould will be relatively pain free.

Perhaps but the process of separating Scotland from England won't be straightforward. Similar problems to those faced currently on the island of Ireland due to Brexit will need to be addressed. In addition, unraveling the monetary  (and fiscal) ties between the two won't be simple.

26 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

That said, it is not inevitable that Scotland would seek to rejoin the EU as a full member. There were a relatively small number of Leave voters in the Brexit referendum, and I read that as many as 30% of independence supporters favoured Brexit so nothing about the future is clear at present. 

But then doesn't this undermine the argument for a second referendum i.e. that the result of the Brexit referendum materially affects circumstances? If Scotland didn't rejoin the EU, how would its circumstances be materially different to 2014 and to those of England and Wales?

[RayC]

47 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Expect much more this sort of smear job. The BBC in Scotland (and the UK) is crammed to the gunwales with unionists. Any and every attempt to smear the cause of independence is seized upon with relish. I can understand why - they will lose a significant amount of funding when Scotland leaves the UK. 

Well, if the intention was to undermine the SNP (independence), imo it didn't make much of a fist of it. 

 

I don't know any more about 1) the trial 2) Alex Salmond 3) the SNP or 4) Scotland than I did this time last week. It could, of course, just be me and all other viewers are now greatly enlightened!

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I would tend to agree...and for such an important question, maybe a super-majority should be required. But however such a vote would go, you're likely to have a sizeable group of people embittered by the result.

Or just avoid referendums completely (unless it is just a rubber stamping exercise where opinion polls suggest that there is an overwhelming majority one way or the other e.g. 80-20).

 

I'm of the view that governments are elected to govern and that's what they should do. If we don't like what the incumbents are doing, we get to make our feelings clear in 4 or 5 years time.

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

Perhaps but the process of separating Scotland from England won't be straightforward. Similar problems to those faced currently on the island of Ireland due to Brexit will need to be addressed. In addition, unraveling the monetary  (and fiscal) ties between the two won't be simple.

 

I think there is no doubt about it, it will be a challenging process, but so much of public utility is not intertwined - we already have separate judicial, education, health systems etc. However there will be many, possibly unforeseen, challenges that will need to be resolved. But just because the path is difficult, if the destination is worthwhile then the journey should still be considered.

 

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

But then doesn't this undermine the argument for a second referendum i.e. that the result of the Brexit referendum materially affects circumstances? If Scotland didn't rejoin the EU, how would its circumstances be materially different to 2014 and to those of England and Wales?

62% voted against Brexit - so it still has the backing of the majority. Since 2017 there have been at least 3 electoral mandates handed to the SNP to seek a second referendum. 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I'm of the view that governments are elected to govern and that's what they should do. If we don't like what the incumbents are doing, we get to make our feelings clear in 4 or 5 years time.

And therein lies the fundamental problem - depending upon whether you consider the UK a unitary state or a union of countries. Those who feel it is the former see your suggestion as reasonable, however there are those who see it as the latter, and they see the continued imposition of the will of the larger country increasingly unreasonable. 

[elliss]

On 8/13/2020 at 8:05 PM, RuamRudy said:

Can this thread get any better?

 

Can this thread get any worse .

  Try Netfix , first mounth free ...

 

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

If you are talking about 'The trial of Alex Salmond', then I thought that it was one of the most pointless programmes ever made.  I did not follow things closely at the time and learnt absolutely nothing new last night.

 

Imo this waste of an hour could be summarised as (1) Politician accused of sexual crimes (and of being a bully) (2) Politician acquitted of crimes. Unproven re bully claim (3) Unsurprisingly, accusers upset at verdict (4) Former colleagues - including current leader - distance themselves from accused while insisting they didn't (5) Other politicians, who have fallen out of favour, have a dig at current leadership. Did I miss anything? The programme was a complete waste of time and resources.

What you did miss because it was not shown and has not been covered by the MSM was days 8 and 9 of the trial.

That was when the defense brought in their witnesses.

Odd how a program could cover all the accusations but failed entirely to cover the defense. 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

<snip>

Perhaps but the process of separating Scotland from England won't be straightforward. Similar problems to those faced currently on the island of Ireland due to Brexit will need to be addressed.

 

The situation of the Irish border has been massively complicated by the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which essentially guarantees an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

 

But that is an exception; the EU has many other land borders with non member states, none of which is subject to such an agreement.

 

Were an independent Scotland to join the EU, then there would need to be some form of customs control between England and Scotland at least; such as that between Norway and Sweden or France and Switzerland.

 

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Since 2017 there have been at least 3 electoral mandates handed to the SNP to seek a second referendum. 

Any SNP manifesto will presumably always argue for independence; it is, after all, the raison d'etre of the party.

 

I have a superficial knowledge of Scottish politics, but enough to know that the Scottish Tory and Labour parties are in a mess, and that it is conceivable that the SNP may win the largest share of the vote in Scotland in each Scottish or General Election for the next 10 years or more. If a second independence referendum voted to remain in the UK, would it therefore be legitimate, desirable or democratic for the SNP to demand a third referendum?

 

Moreover, I can only repeat what I posted previously, imo any demand for a second referendum is completely tied to Scottish membership of the EU,  so there would have to be a combined question. The alternative is to completely disregard the 2014 result.

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The situation of the Irish border has been massively complicated by the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which essentially guarantees an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

 

But that is an exception; the EU has many other land borders with non member states, none of which is subject to such an agreement.

 

Were an independent Scotland to join the EU, then there would need to be some form of customs control between England and Scotland at least; such as that between Norway and Sweden or France and Switzerland.

 

 

Agreed the NI/Ireland is unique, but even the other, relatively well functioning borders you mention are not without their problems. 

 

Disentangling the monetary ties between England and Scotland might be far from straightforward.

[Nigel Garvie]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

snip

 

That said, it is not inevitable that Scotland would seek to rejoin the EU as a full member. There were a relatively small number of Leave voters in the Brexit referendum, and I read that as many as 30% of independence supporters favoured Brexit so nothing about the future is clear at present. 

Indeed, all these posts saying you won't be able to manage without England, completely ignore the fact that many other similarly sized nations, Finland, Denmark, Portugal, and smaller ones like Lithuania and Slovenia have survived without big brother. 

 

There will be complicated trade, and financial matters to sort out of course, has no one ever managed to do this before?

 

And then there are the posts saying you will have to - join the EU, adopt the Euro, etc etc. The answer is not necessarily, all sorts of things are possible.  Scotland could join a Northern league with countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland etc, that was linked to EU in different ways, just for one example. It would be pleasant to share our future with other civilised countries, as it gets harder every day to describe England as one of those, under the current for right mismanagement.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, RayC said:

Any SNP manifesto will presumably always argue for independence; it is, after all, the raison d'etre of the party.

 

I have a superficial knowledge of Scottish politics, but enough to know that the Scottish Tory and Labour parties are in a mess, and that it is conceivable that the SNP may win the largest share of the vote in Scotland in each Scottish or General Election for the next 10 years or more. If a second independence referendum voted to remain in the UK, would it therefore be legitimate, desirable or democratic for the SNP to demand a third referendum?

 

Moreover, I can only repeat what I posted previously, imo any demand for a second referendum is completely tied to Scottish membership of the EU,  so there would have to be a combined question. The alternative is to completely disregard the 2014 result.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the inability of the opposition parties in Scotland to present credible alternatives to the SNP diminishes any 'validation' that the SNP may infer from their share of the votes?

 

David Cameron gave us Brexit on the back of the tories winning 37% of the vote in the 2015 election. If the SNP, as predicted, take more than half the votes in the Holyrood election next year, you still think they have to jump through further, as yet unspecified, hoops to secure a mandate?

 

But it is not the SNP demanding anything for the SNP - if they win an election with a manifesto pledge to enact a policy, it is their duty to follow up that promise with an attempt to deliver - because that is what the voters desired. Therefore, as long as they keep winning elections, they must keep pursuing the promises they made to the electorate. 

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, RayC said:

Agreed the NI/Ireland is unique, but even the other, relatively well functioning borders you mention are not without their problems. 

 

Disentangling the monetary ties between England and Scotland might be far from straightforward.

Something being challenging is not a reason not to do it. 

[stretch5163]

On 8/16/2020 at 5:10 PM, RuamRudy said:

That is a very uncharitable post. She wasn't FM for the first vote so she didn't lower anything. What she is now doing is leading the most popular party in the country. The polls for the SNP reflect the faith the electorate have in her leadership and the support for independence reflect the majority desire for change. 

Please check your facts before opening your mouth and letting the brown stuff come out.  

 

In case the link isnt allowed then have pasted below.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-voting-age-lowered-today-1569880

 

The broadly supported change will allow younger people to have their say in the independence referendum, due to be held on September 18 next year.

MSPs will lower the age limit while passing the Scottish Referendum (Franchise) Bill at Holyrood.

The Bill sets the voting franchise in line with normal parliamentary elections, applying to British and EU citizens registered in Scotland.

 

Qualifying Commonwealth citizens and armed service personnel in the UK or overseas, who are registered in Scotland, will also be allowed to vote.

Promoting the reduced voting age earlier this year, Ms Sturgeon said: “No one has a bigger stake in the future of our country than today’s young people and it is only right that they are able to have a say in the most important vote to be held in Scotland for three centuries.

“In next year’s referendum, Scotland’s 16 and 17-year-olds will be given the opportunity to shape their country’s path by choosing what type of country they want Scotland to be.”

 

Still happy to say no lowering of ages were made for the Referendum ?

 

Uncharitable or not im entitled to my opinion and as its factual i dont think its so uncharitable.

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by stretch5163

[RuamRudy]

12 minutes ago, stretch5163 said:

Please check your facts before opening your mouth and letting the brown stuff come out.  

 

In case the link isnt allowed then have pasted below.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-voting-age-lowered-today-1569880

 

The broadly supported change will allow younger people to have their say in the independence referendum, due to be held on September 18 next year.

MSPs will lower the age limit while passing the Scottish Referendum (Franchise) Bill at Holyrood.

The Bill sets the voting franchise in line with normal parliamentary elections, applying to British and EU citizens registered in Scotland.

 

Qualifying Commonwealth citizens and armed service personnel in the UK or overseas, who are registered in Scotland, will also be allowed to vote.

Promoting the reduced voting age earlier this year, Ms Sturgeon said: “No one has a bigger stake in the future of our country than today’s young people and it is only right that they are able to have a say in the most important vote to be held in Scotland for three centuries.

“In next year’s referendum, Scotland’s 16 and 17-year-olds will be given the opportunity to shape their country’s path by choosing what type of country they want Scotland to be.”

 

Still happy to say no lowering of ages were made for the Referendum ?

 

Uncharitable or not im entitled to my opinion and as its factual i dont think its so uncharitable.

 

 

 

You come across as quite an angry person. Is this just on this topic or do you fly off the handle for other trivial reasons too?

 

Your original post stated:

On 8/16/2020 at 4:35 PM, stretch5163 said:

she lowered the age to vote on the independence referendum.

But all she did was campaign for it. She did not have the power to enforce it herself. 

 

You are, indeed, entitled to your opinion, as am I. I stated that I felt you were uncharitable in your post (opinion, not fact) because you wrote this:

 

On 8/16/2020 at 4:35 PM, stretch5163 said:

Getting boring now. Maybe Corona will come her way and do us all a favour..

I believe that to be uncharitable and adolescent. Grow up. 

[Rookiescot]

32 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

You come across as quite an angry person. Is this just on this topic or do you fly off the handle for other trivial reasons too?

 

Your original post stated:

But all she did was campaign for it. She did not have the power to enforce it herself. 

 

You are, indeed, entitled to your opinion, as am I. I stated that I felt you were uncharitable in your post (opinion, not fact) because you wrote this:

 

I believe that to be uncharitable and adolescent. Grow up. 

Its odd is it not? All the angry posters on here are British unionists and Nationalists.

To be expected I suppose. They must be on stage 2 of the 5 stages of grief. 

[evadgib]

59 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Its odd is it not? All the angry posters on here are British unionists and Nationalists.

To be expected I suppose. They must be on stage 2 of the 5 stages of grief. 

To be expected in an ???????????????????????????? language forum discussing a domestic issue of interest to ????????'s living in ????????, ????????????, or the odd (alledged) democrat stuck in ???????????????????????????? while (still) wearing a ???? and frantically waving a ???????? flag! ????

Edited August 19, 2020 by evadgib

[evadgib]

10 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Indeed, all these posts saying you won't be able to manage without England, completely ignore the fact that many other similarly sized nations, Finland, Denmark, Portugal, and smaller ones like Lithuania and Slovenia have survived without big brother. 

 

There will be complicated trade, and financial matters to sort out of course, has no one ever managed to do this before?

 

And then there are the posts saying you will have to - join the EU, adopt the Euro, etc etc. The answer is not necessarily, all sorts of things are possible.  Scotland could join a Northern league with countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland etc, that was linked to EU in different ways, just for one example. It would be pleasant to share our future with other civilised countries, as it gets harder every day to describe England as one of those, under the current for right mismanagement.

You were in line for a 'like' until I reached that 'far right' baloney (despite the typo).