Scottish 'Independence' without a Referendum?

[The Harp Awakes]

I've been reading quite a bit of political commentary following the SNP's lanslide election victory last week. There seems to be a growing opinion expressed by political correspondents that the outcome of the next period of governance may be a Scotland which is independent of Westminster in all but name.

Holyrood will assume control of virtually all our affairs, but the Queen will remain head of state with some deal being done on defence.

This seems a possible compromise as even the SNP's view of independence is of the Queen remaining the monarch and the Westminster Tory's would be overjoyed if their parliament was minus the presence of Scottish Labour MPs as it would likely ensure a Tory Government in England & Wales for the forseeable future. A deal on defence may mean a continuing Scottish presence in the British Army in return for the survival of Lossiemouth/Kinloss.

Thoughts?

[Beefster]

Can't happen IMO. Even the SNP admit that a vote for them in a parliamentary election isn't a vote for independence. Even if it was, less than 50% of the electorate voted for the SNP so it's not a mandate for independence either way.

In reality, the parliament will get the extra powers in the Scotland Bill but, despite the SNP political posturing, not that much more.

PS I can guarantee you that no UK party, be it Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, would be happy to see Scotland leave the union so I'm not sure where the 'overjoyed' bit is coming from.

[steakbake]

Can't happen IMO. Even the SNP admit that a vote for them in a parliamentary election isn't a vote for independence. Even if it was, less than 50% of the electorate voted for the SNP so it's not a mandate for independence either way.

In reality, the parliament will get the extra powers in the Scotland Bill but, despite the SNP political posturing, not that much more.

PS I can guarantee you that no UK party, be it Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, would be happy to see Scotland leave the union so I'm not sure where the 'overjoyed' bit is coming from.

Interesting point. If that is the case, then has no government ever had the mandate to make any decision? There hasn't been an election in UK history which has delivered 50% of the full electorate voting for the governing party.

I agree that independence needs a referendum, but the point the OP was trying to make is that the SNP have a solid mandate - the best mandate that has ever been delivered in devolution's short history and percentage wise, it is the same as New Labour's win in 2007. They are fully entitled to negotiate for devolution max and then some within the existing constitutional set up. The step to independence would then be a far shorter leap. It's a great strategy.

Also, this idea that if Scotland was not in the Union, it would be the Tories forever in England and Wales is totally wrong. Labour's majority in 1997 was 179, 173 in 2001, 126 in 2005. Scotland has 72 seats in total...

[Beefster]

Interesting point. If that is the case, then has no government ever had the mandate to make any decision? There hasn't been an election in UK history which has delivered 50% of the full electorate voting for the governing party.

I agree that independence needs a referendum, but the point the OP was trying to make is that the SNP have a solid mandate - the best mandate that has ever been delivered in devolution's short history and percentage wise, it is the same as New Labour's win in 2007. They are fully entitled to negotiate for devolution max and then some within the existing constitutional set up. The step to independence would then be a far shorter leap. It's a great strategy.

Also, this idea that if Scotland was not in the Union, it would be the Tories forever in England and Wales is totally wrong. Labour's majority in 1997 was 179, 173 in 2001, 126 in 2005. Scotland has 72 seats in total...

I meant >50% of the turnout rather than the entire electorate. I should have been clearer.

Whether the SNP have a mandate to demand more powers than in the Scotland Bill depends on exactly what was in their manifesto and in how much detail. They have a mandate for whatever they said they'd ask for though, I agree. That doesn't mean that they will get it, mind you.

[One Day Soon]

Good thread topic and it goes to the heart of something I posted in one of the other related discussions on here - before we can move forward on 'independence' (or not) we need to have defined what 'independence' really means.

Unless we are talking about a separate sovereign state, free standing in its own right with complete control over all aspects of the nation - defence, foreign affairs, macro economic policy etc, then we are not talking about 'independence'. So if that is not what is being proposed, what form of devolution max or alternatively federalism is being proposed?

This is really a question for the Nats on the board in the first instance.

[J-C]

Good thread topic and it goes to the heart of something I posted in one of the other related discussions on here - before we can move forward on 'independence' (or not) we need to have defined what 'independence' really means.

Unless we are talking about a separate sovereign state, free standing in its own right with complete control over all aspects of the nation - defence, foreign affairs, macro economic policy etc, then we are not talking about 'independence'. So if that is not what is being proposed, what form of devolution max or alternatively federalism is being proposed?

This is really a question for the Nats on the board in the first instance.


I think the unitial idea of an independant Scotland was to be a complete and seperate nation in it's own right, as it was prior to 1707. Times have changed and due to commerce and industry this may be something which is not feesible any longer.
Many of our banks, insurance companies, even our power companies etc are all connected with either English or foreign parties, so in essence we are not able to go totally seperate due to these details.
I think what may be the case is Scotland being a seperate nation in name only, looking after it's own internal affairs, collecting it's own taxes, and receiving a very much larger portion of the oil revenues. Central government would then have no say whatsoever in the affairs of Scotland, although we would still be involved ecconomically due to the closeness of many of our companies and institutes.

All this is conjecture and we'll have to wait till Mr Salmond enlightens us as to his future plans for our country.

[heretoday]

It's not gonna happen. Scots will not vote for it.

We're not exactly marching in the streets are we?

Which we should be doing if we are serious about independence.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It's not gonna happen. Scots will not vote for it.

We're not exactly marching in the streets are we?

Which we should be doing if we are serious about independence.

I agree it won't happen, well at least not yet, however I'm not sure the fact that we aren't marching in the streets is an indicator. It is possible to think that being in the UK is ok, however being out of the UK would be better.

I suppose what I'm saying is that a vote for independence doesn't mean you hate England and want to rebuild Hadrian's wall, it can just mean that you think we would be better on our own.

[ancienthibby]

I think this whole matter of independence is already too stuck on one word: 'independence'

To me, over the decades that I have experienced, it's becoming what I would call: 'a moveable feast', and to me, that's no bad thing.

Here's an article from a well-respected Labourite, Gerry Hassan, which may help stimulate some thinking:

http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/a-beginners-guide-to-scottish-independence-and-britain/#more-1752

[One Day Soon]

I think this whole matter of independence is already too stuck on one word: 'independence'

To me, over the decades that I have experienced, it's becoming what I would call: 'a moveable feast', and to me, that's no bad thing.

Here's an article from a well-respected Labourite, Gerry Hassan, which may help stimulate some thinking:

http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/a-beginners-guide-to-scottish-independence-and-britain/#more-1752

I know a LOT of Labour people and I don't know any of them who would describe Gerry Hassan as a "well respected Labourite". That's not to say the article is no good - I haven't had a chance to read it yet - but let's be clear that he does not speak for Labour.

[ancient hibee]

The fact that last month the Herald and the Scotsman had their lowest circulations and that most of the great Scottish public couldn't be bothered to turn out to vote makes me suspect that we've had our fill of politicians and political posturing and simply want some competent people to start running the country properly.What worries me is that the SNP will use indepence to have arguments at UK level instead of getting on with governing.On a local level the plan to close our main street for the best part of a year to repair tramlines that have never,and never will,had a tram running on them tells me that the Council has finally lost a grip on reality.They will argue that the contractor is paying for it -but not for the loss of business and the inconvenience as the city gridlocks.

[Betty Boop]

The fact that last month the Herald and the Scotsman had their lowest circulations and that most of the great Scottish public couldn't be bothered to turn out to vote makes me suspect that we've had our fill of politicians and political posturing and simply want some competent people to start running the country properly.What worries me is that the SNP will use indepence to have arguments at UK level instead of getting on with governing.On a local level the plan to close our main street for the best part of a year to repair tramlines that have never,and never will,had a tram running on them tells me that the Council has finally lost a grip on reality.They will argue that the contractor is paying for it -but not for the loss of business and the inconvenience as the city gridlocks.

Agree 100% ! Absolute madness !! :bitchy:

[bighairyfaeleith]

The fact that last month the Herald and the Scotsman had their lowest circulations and that most of the great Scottish public couldn't be bothered to turn out to vote makes me suspect that we've had our fill of politicians and political posturing and simply want some competent people to start running the country properly.What worries me is that the SNP will use indepence to have arguments at UK level instead of getting on with governing.On a local level the plan to close our main street for the best part of a year to repair tramlines that have never,and never will,had a tram running on them tells me that the Council has finally lost a grip on reality.They will argue that the contractor is paying for it -but not for the loss of business and the inconvenience as the city gridlocks.

The work has to be done, however the mistake is that they are not lifting the tram lines at the same time

[heretoday]

I agree it won't happen, well at least not yet, however I'm not sure the fact that we aren't marching in the streets is an indicator. It is possible to think that being in the UK is ok, however being out of the UK would be better.

I suppose what I'm saying is that a vote for independence doesn't mean you hate England and want to rebuild Hadrian's wall, it can just mean that you think we would be better on our own.

Re the fact that we are not marching streets etc. I think it most definitely is an indicator.

The fact that we are not marching I mean.

There has to be a positive piece of action - be it marching or whatever. Independence cannot be just a "lifestyle choice" a la Scotland on Sunday magazine.

[DaveF]

Re the fact that we are not marching streets etc. I think it most definitely is an indicator.

The fact that we are not marching I mean.

There has to be a positive piece of action - be it marching or whatever. Independence cannot be just a "lifestyle choice" a la Scotland on Sunday magazine.

I'm perhaps a tired old cynic, but did the 'stop the cuts' march in London actually do anything positive to stop the cuts?

I understand the point you make - I just wonder though if it's anything more than a token gesture.

I'm in no way denying that people power (or whatever you want to call it) is a powerful tide to swim against in a society where change is the most important thing to the people (ala Egypt, Tunisia, Eastern Bloc of old...) but here in the UK, apathy seems to rule and any protests I've ever seen just happen and nothing much seems to change.

[ancient hibee]

Re the fact that we are not marching streets etc. I think it most definitely is an indicator.

The fact that we are not marching I mean.

There has to be a positive piece of action - be it marching or whatever. Independence cannot be just a "lifestyle choice" a la Scotland on Sunday magazine.
Far from marching in the streets half the electorate can't even be bothered to vote.

[RIP]

If you had suggested twenty or thirty years ago that one day Scotland would have it's own Parliament most people in this country would have thought you were mad.

Next up it was an Assembly only, a talking shop, an extra layer of local government

Now, we have our own Parliament and the Labour, Liberals and Tories are actually advocating more powers for it (Calman?)

Salmond has everyone foaming at the mouth about Independence on the one hand whilst slowly assimilating more powers for Holyrood on the other. In a few years we won't need to discuss Independence, we will have it and nobody will have even noticed

[J-C]

Far from marching in the streets half the electorate can't even be bothered to vote.


:rolleyes:

[greenlex]

Folks took to the street( well the roads actually) a number of years ago when the price of petrol reached intolerable levels. £1 per litre IIRC That worked a treat didn't it? I am an old cynic too. It's risen 40% since then and we just accept it now.

[Hibbie0762]

Thoughts?Be careful what you wish for :wink:

In 1992 Vaclav Klaus engineered the breakup of Czechoslovakia without any Referendum, and with polls showing support for separation in each country running at around 36%. But that was more to do with Klaus' own political ambitions and the dumping of what many of then-Czechoslovakia's political elite regarded as a poor and backward region holding them back.

Slovakia has not gone to the dogs since the so-called Velvet Revolution but neither has it exactly prospered. The Czech Republic on the other hand is doing well. If you visit both Prague and Bratislava, there is no mistaking the different dynamic.

Of course Scotland is not Slovakia and Edinburgh is not Bratislava, but the SNP have - 12 years on from the establishment of a Scottish Parliament - yet to articulate a reasoned case for independence. Voters will want a bit more than populist slogans now. They will expect to see the fine detail (especially the fiscal detail) of how separation will be effected in practical terms and how an independent Scotland will operate. And the SNP now seem to be in dispute with their own Fundies as to what actually constitutes of independence (the Salmond brand is looking distinctly low-alcohol so far).

It seems unlikely therefore that the SNP will try to impose independence on a country where (whatever the SNP's majority) slightly better than 1 in 5 of the Electorate bothered to vote for them, and even less likely that such a manouevre would succeed.

[--------]

I watched Michael Portillo's documentary on Alec Salmond on Sunday evening.

He interviewed Jim Sillars and Margo MacDonald and asked them about this very thing. Margo's response was that if and when the Scottish electorate came to the conclusion that services could be supplied better and more efficiently by a Scottish Government in Edinburgh than by the UK government in Westminster, then the power would shift to Edinburgh without a great deal of fuss - no marching in the streets, no barricades, no bloodshed. Just a quiet assumption of powers over a period until Scotland was effectively independent within the EU.

Seems to me that this would be no more than the continuation of the process that has been going on since the establishment of the Parliament. Painless, bloodless, responsible gradualism.

Unionists keep repeating the mantra, "Scots don't want independence" - Darling was at it on Sunday night, but that was before the election so Portillo couldn't ask him which way the voters in HIS bit of Edinburgh voted a week past Thursday. :devil:

I actually think they're probably right - for now. But MAYBE Scots would like to see their elected representatives actually standing up for them and for Scottish interests in Westminster, rather than always voting as their Westminster leaders tell them to?

I would agree that right now the majority of the Scottish electorate don't want independence. But it does seem that a fair wedge of the Scottish electorate have become thoroughly tired of being told that of all the nations in Europe, we're the only ones that can't be trusted to take more responsibility for our own affairs. I know I have.

[Mibbes Aye]

I watched Michael Portillo's documentary on Alec Salmond on Sunday evening.

He interviewed Jim Sillars and Margo MacDonald and asked them about this very thing. Margo's response was that if and when the Scottish electorate came to the conclusion that services could be supplied better and more efficiently by a Scottish Government in Edinburgh than by the UK government in Westminster, then the power would shift to Edinburgh without a great deal of fuss - no marching in the streets, no barricades, no bloodshed. Just a quiet assumption of powers over a period until Scotland was effectively independent within the EU.

Seems to me that this would be no more than the continuation of the process that has been going on since the establishment of the Parliament. Painless, bloodless, responsible gradualism.

Unionists keep repeating the mantra, "Scots don't want independence" - Darling was at it on Sunday night, but that was before the election so Portillo couldn't ask him which way the voters in HIS bit of Edinburgh voted a week past Thursday. :devil:

I actually think they're probably right - for now. But MAYBE Scots would like to see their elected representatives actually standing up for them and for Scottish interests in Westminster, rather than always voting as their Westminster leaders tell them to?

I would agree that right now the majority of the Scottish electorate don't want independence. But it does seem that a fair wedge of the Scottish electorate have become thoroughly tired of being told that of all the nations in Europe, we're the only ones that can't be trusted to take more responsibility for our own affairs. I know I have.

To be honest Doddie, I think that the people who most put out the line about Scots not being trusted to manage their own affairs are the Nats themselves, trying to drum up some sense of victimhood that's often reminiscent of the worst excesses of Celtc fans. They're the ones who keep saying it's all someone else's fault, they're the ones who try and make Scots out to be some sort of victims of a cruel and unusual injustice.

The rest of us know fine well that Scots are more than capable of being anything they want to be, achieving anything they want to achieve, regardless of what kind of flag flies over our government buildings and regardless of where the heid bummer's office is located :greengrin.

Before the Coalition took power, the two most important jobs in the UK government were held by Scotsmen. Putting aside the party political stuff, they were at the heart of securing agreement on how to deal with the near-collapse of the global economy and were recognised for that by the other world leaders. Likewise those Scots who have achieved greatness in other fields, be it science, the arts or whatever, weren't really held back by the fact that Scotland isn't an independent nation.

The only thing that can really hold us back is us ourselves - not the English, not the Union and not the fact that Scotland doesn't have a wee microphone and place card at the EU or the UN :agree:

[Hibbie0762]

To be honest Doddie, I think that the people who most put out the line about Scots not being trusted to manage their own affairs are the Nats themselves, trying to drum up some sense of victimhood that's often reminiscent of the worst excesses of Celtc fans. They're the ones who keep saying it's all someone else's fault, they're the ones who try and make Scots out to be some sort of victims of a cruel and unusual injustice.

The rest of us know fine well that Scots are more than capable of being anything they want to be, achieving anything they want to achieve, regardless of what kind of flag flies over our government buildings and regardless of where the heid bummer's office is located :greengrin.

Before the Coalition took power, the two most important jobs in the UK government were held by Scotsmen. Putting aside the party political stuff, they were at the heart of securing agreement on how to deal with the near-collapse of the global economy and were recognised for that by the other world leaders. Likewise those Scots who have achieved greatness in other fields, be it science, the arts or whatever, weren't really held back by the fact that Scotland isn't an independent nation.

The only thing that can really hold us back is us ourselves - not the English, not the Union and not the fact that Scotland doesn't have a wee microphone and place card at the EU or the UN :agree:All very true. The so-called Scottish Cringe is largely a Nationalist invention. The rest of us are actually surprisingly comfortable and confident in our current Scottish skins.

There may well be a convincing case for independence, but 12 years after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament the SNP are no nearer articulating it, and certainly not in the sort of detail which will be needed if they are to win a majority in any Referendum on independence. So far all we hear is populist sloganeering. Personally I will need a better reason to vote yes than that an independent Scotland will be, well ... independent!

Still, the SNP are the masters now, and in some style too. Not constrained by other Parties as they claim to have been over the past four years. No longer able to blame all of Scotland's perceived problems on Westminster.

Put up or shut up time. Should be interesting. :greengrin

[Part/Time Supporter]

To be honest Doddie, I think that the people who most put out the line about Scots not being trusted to manage their own affairs are the Nats themselves, trying to drum up some sense of victimhood that's often reminiscent of the worst excesses of Celtc fans. They're the ones who keep saying it's all someone else's fault, they're the ones who try and make Scots out to be some sort of victims of a cruel and unusual injustice.

The rest of us know fine well that Scots are more than capable of being anything they want to be, achieving anything they want to achieve, regardless of what kind of flag flies over our government buildings and regardless of where the heid bummer's office is located :greengrin.

Before the Coalition took power, the two most important jobs in the UK government were held by Scotsmen. Putting aside the party political stuff, they were at the heart of securing agreement on how to deal with the near-collapse of the global economy and were recognised for that by the other world leaders. Likewise those Scots who have achieved greatness in other fields, be it science, the arts or whatever, weren't really held back by the fact that Scotland isn't an independent nation.

The only thing that can really hold us back is us ourselves - not the English, not the Union and not the fact that Scotland doesn't have a wee microphone and place card at the EU or the UN :agree:

Good for them. But in whose interests were they governing? What considerations motivated (for example) Gordon Brown to cut the basic rate of income tax to 20%, but abolish the starting rate of 10%?

Has the governance of Scotland over the last 30 years (taken as a whole) been good? Could or would it have been better if Scotland had been self-governing during that period?

I don't think most nationalists would dispute the notion that for a long period Scotland benefitted from being in union with England. It's not a coincidence that the rise of the SNP coincided with the dismemberment of the British Empire. The oil discovery kind of accelerated the process, but for the next 10-20 years also led to a kind of chippy nationalism that did the SNP no favours. Over the last 10 years or so, however, I think the SNP has matured significantly, while unionists have been largely trapping themselves within their own logic (hence why support for dissolving the union is almost as high in England as it is in Scotland).

[Hibbie0762]

Good for them. But in whose interests were they governing? What considerations motivated (for example) Gordon Brown to cut the basic rate of income tax to 20%, but abolish the starting rate of 10%?You'd have to ask Gordy himself for the definitive answer but I doubt that it was motivated by anti-Scottish sentiment. If the argument is that it was a policy which impacted disproportionately and adversely on the less well off, there are quite a lot of them in the rest of the UK as well. But still ... any handy stick with which to beat Westminster, eh?


Has the governance of Scotland over the last 30 years (taken as a whole) been good? Could or would it have been better if Scotland had been self-governing during that period?No doubt the SNP will be giving us the answer to those questions as part of their Referendum pitch for independence. With worked examples rather than just slogans, we hope.


I don't think most nationalists would dispute the notion that for a long period Scotland benefitted from being in union with England.A fair number of those I know date the start of Scotland's alleged decline back to 1707 :greengrin


Over the last 10 years or so, however, I think the SNP has matured significantlyThey have certainly developed a more effective game plan and presentational style under Salmond's leadership. Now that they are so much the masters they will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate whether or not a cunning strategy to harvest votes equates to political maturity.

[--------]

Good for them. But in whose interests were they governing? What considerations motivated (for example) Gordon Brown to cut the basic rate of income tax to 20%, but abolish the starting rate of 10%?

Has the governance of Scotland over the last 30 years (taken as a whole) been good? Could or would it have been better if Scotland had been self-governing during that period?

I don't think most nationalists would dispute the notion that for a long period Scotland benefitted from being in union with England. It's not a coincidence that the rise of the SNP coincided with the dismemberment of the British Empire. The oil discovery kind of accelerated the process, but for the next 10-20 years also led to a kind of chippy nationalism that did the SNP no favours. Over the last 10 years or so, however, I think the SNP has matured significantly, while unionists have been largely trapping themselves within their own logic (hence why support for dissolving the union is almost as high in England as it is in Scotland).

In a TV debate during the run-up to the first Holyrood elections, Alec Salmond asked Donald Dewar, with 59 Labour MPs in Westminster and after decades of political supremacy in Scotland, to name ONE Scottish industry he and his Labour colleagues had saved from closure. IIRC Donald D faffed around for 3 or 4 minutes and still hadn't given a straight answer when he finally popped his clogs.

Brown and darling may well have got big, well-paying jobs in Westminster, but they weren't governing in my interests, or in the interests of anyone I know personally.

Still, you can't accuse them of forgetting ALL their fellow-countrymen.

Freddy Goodwin did VERY well out of them, as I recall.

[One Day Soon]

In a TV debate during the run-up to the first Holyrood elections, Alec Salmond asked Donald Dewar, with 59 Labour MPs in Westminster and after decades of political supremacy in Scotland, to name ONE Scottish industry he and his Labour colleagues had saved from closure. IIRC Donald D faffed around for 3 or 4 minutes and still hadn't given a straight answer when he finally popped his clogs.

Let's see. Whisky, textiles, oil, fisheries, farming. Do they count? They're still here so they must count? Nice of you to repeat your personal vendetta against Donald Dewar though. Are you inaccurately rude about the living too? Your slavish dogma would suit you to organised religion.

Brown and darling may well have got big, well-paying jobs in Westminster, but they weren't governing in my interests, or in the interests of anyone I know personally.

Quite right, saving the two Scottish banks wasn't at all in your interests or of the rest of us in Scotland. You must have a small and very peculiar social circle.....

Still, you can't accuse them of forgetting ALL their fellow-countrymen.

Freddy Goodwin did VERY well out of them, as I recall.

How's that then?

Was the winter weather payments scheme forgetting Scottish pensioners? Were all the new apprenticeships forgetting young Scots?