Wings Over Scotland

There’s definitely something to what you suggest, though as you you say the EU might be less then thrilled about it!

However it would be nice, it we went first that route, if the Leave campaign had a definite end-state in mind which they had campaigned on. (The so-called “Norway option” might suit an independent Scotland, and might be a compromise that could win?)

The position of the Yes Leavers who’ve switched to No is a bewildering one, times infinity plus one.

I’m no fan of he present EU but it is a club of independent nations. There also appears to be an effective democratic process and mechanisms for leaving, so what the bother?

There is no sustainable future for Scotland governed by London. Scotland must become independent if Scottish culture is to remain intact. Cultural diversity and integrity are considered essential components of sustainable national development strategies.

Policy driven by a heightened culturalism does not require closed borders or an attitude of isolationism. That require a particular outlook more commonly found elsewhere.

Yes, agree with this article. This is the correct way to go about things because a) whether unionists accept it or not, there has been a material change since indyref and we should be consulted on whether we accept it (the evidence being that we might not, since Scotland voted remain and b) it’s correct to start off on a democratic footing by asking again what Scots think of the EU if we voted Yes, which would be another material change that may have some bearing on how some people would vote in any EURef 2.

This is what I have been saying since June. The EU referendum was about the UK leaving or staying. We need Independence first, then argue the points in favour and against EU membership for Scotland.

Good piece as usual, excellent analysis based on statistics, but couldn’t disagree more about loss of EU membership having ‘very little negative effect on people’s day to day lives’, a statement too glib to overlook.

The repercussions from the rise of fascist groups and attitudes together with Trump creating a cabinet of war mongers – each disliking a unified Europe – is horrendous to contemplate. And that doesn’t take into account ‘Brits’ treated as aliens every time we step on European soil, or the loss of co-operation in all walks of life.

Westminster’s idea of the UK always sitting at the top table will have us eating grass from a stool.

Sorry for O/T
Proceedings of the Supreme Court live

link to supremecourt.uk

Not often, to the point that this might be a first time, I disagree. I believe in the EU dream insofar as it’s the biggest source of humanitarian aid relief & have no doubt its prevented European countries from tearing each others throat out. But in practice I admit that it sucks eg Greece.

So for someone who held there nose and voted simply to piss off London, the thought of going through it again is unappealing. For despite any economic arguments. next time round I know it would invariably be based on simply trying to piss of racists.
Now if you had said that the SNP should reaffirm Scottish sovereignty; mechanisms would be implemented whereby ‘popular’ topics would be debated and, if sought, a referendum held; and that no subject would be deemed too much, then ‘hell yeah!’

Instead of ‘Vote for independence and there will be another EU referendum’, I would rather see ‘Vote for independence and there can be another referendum on anything YOU want; NATO membership, EU membership, second senate and constitution, republicanism, copyright infringement, drug penalties….anything. First control, then direction.

Couldn’t they have two questions on the ballot

1) Should Scotland be an independent country

2) Should an independent Scotland seek to remain a member of or join the EU?

galamcennalath
I would have hoped our EU club privileges would be kept warm for us, ready to hand back if we chose to re-join.

—-

I definitely see independence and EU membership as distinct of each other. I also think it essential for Scotland to be independent before considering what style of independence we feel comfortable with (NATO, etc.). Independence enables Scotland to direct policy towards the best possible outcome. This is not possible within the UK, where the economy of the south east is overheated and Westminster defines ‘national’ interest.

I know the world looks exciting and we’ve been kept in for a very long time, but lets make sure our laces are tied before we go running off into the sunshine.

The big picture is to escape Westminster’s clutches then a negotiated settlement with the EU which might or might not involve a referendum after a suck it n see period. Mebbes best not to appear too desperate! 🙂

I can see a lot of sense in this although also foresee certain parties (i.e. all the unionist ones…) really going off the deep end if the SNP say they are holding an independence referendum due to Brexit and then proceed to announce that they are going to hold an EU referendum straight after should we vote for independence.

What might be a better option is to frame the EU referendum as a way to accept the membership deal we get from the EU, whether that is as continuing state from the UK, a new bespoke deal or something else all together. That way it keeps the anti EU folk happy with it not being an automatic entry in, keeps the pro EU folk happy that they have a chance to stay in and should be a perfectly suitable point for the EU to accept as well.

” “We would need to have a very clearly spelled out, enforceable definition of what a vote to leave the EU would mean.”

I address this by pointing out that by then we’d know what the UK’s Brexit looked like, which is about as much as you can ever know about anything in advance of negotiations. ”

I don’t think we would know that for sure – particularly with respect to EEA – at the moment we are being signalled that Scotland would be a welcome member whereas UK would not. Also, if it came to an exit for Scotland, I think our negotiators would do a far better deal for Scotland than the three brexiteers are doing for the UK, and without needlessly aggravating the other 27 members.

I have the usual doubts about the YouGov poll – for one thing, no matter the weighting applied, how do you find a sample of the Scottish population with 27% born outside Scotland, when the 2011 census found the percentage to be under 10? We need to see more polls before we can make any judgements.

Whatever the changes in pace, the course of events is irrevocably in our favour. When political affairs are in a state of flux – as they are – the group with an unwavering and clear objective is at an advantage, and what we have now is flux verging on chaos amongst the unionist parties. The delight which they took in that poll indicates their desperation to believe that enough present supporters of independence can be coaxed to love the UK, or at least give up, to wither the movement to irrelevance. Given the serious consideration required by so many to acquire the conviction that Scotland should be independent, that mass apostasy not going to happen and, as it was the older generation which provided the ‘No’ victory in the 2014 referendum, time is on our side. We keep snapping at the Union’s heels, tripping it up, jamming sticks in its spokes, poking it in the eye, testing its strength, interfering, straining its resolve, making it work, work, work to justify its existence – for as long as it takes.

“Now, we can hear a lot of people sighing already. FOUR national referendums in the space of about five years (we’re not including the AV one, which nobody cared about) would be an awful lot of democracy and an awful lot of campaigning.”

I don’t believe four referendums in five years is too many. The Swiss have a system where changes to the law are subject to the approval of the electorate. In the five years between 2011 and 2016 they have had 55 referendums.

link to admin.ch

In total ” More than 550 referendums have occurred since the constitution of 1848 (legislative or constitutional).”

link to en.wikipedia.org

If the road to Independence can be smoothed by offering Yes supporting Leavers another chance then I would be all for a further referendum on the EU specific to Scotland even if it meant losing.

I want to remain in the EU but other than Independence everything else is small beer to me really.

Mike Lothian, that’s two and a half questions..

Great read. Just the thought of the nation state of Scotland not being told what to do by planet toryboy, makes the old ticker skip a beat.

England’s heading off down a very hard core conservative road. The future belongs to UKIP, no matter how hard or soft their Brexit turns out to be. Actually the softer Brexit really is, the better it gets for UKIPers. And the BBC will be with them all the way.

I hear the suggestion that the SNP should “commit to a second EU referendum in the event of Scotland becoming independent” and I immediately deploy that most basic and essential tool of political analysis, the question, “Why?”. Why would the SNP do that?

They have no mandate for such a commitment. Not only has Scotland just voted on the matter of EU membership, returning a decisive majority for remaining in the EU, but the party has just won two elections on manifestos that explicitly stated a commitment to remaining in the EU. Why would the SNP turn its back on this commitment now? What message would this send to our friends in Europe? What would it say about the party’s respect for the will of the people?

What the SNP cannot do, of course, is rule out a referendum on EU membership post-independence. It is absolutely implicit in the very concept of independence that it involves the power to freely negotiate the terms on which Scotland associates with other nations. Just as it is absolutely implicit in the concept of democracy that the people are the ultimate arbiters of those terms.

But it is not for the SNP, or any other party, to impose a referendum on the people. The way it works is that people must first campaign to win support for the holding of a referendum. Only once a significant level of public demand has been convincingly established does it become necessary for the government to respond to that demand.

The onus is on the Leavers to establish a persuasive case that another vote on EU membership is justified. It is not for the SNP, or any other party, to simply assume that the case has been made. Especially when there is such abundant solid evidence to the contrary in the form of recent polls.

That campaign for a referendum on Scotland’s membership of the EU can only sensibly take place in the context of an already independent Scotland where all decisions are ultimately a matter for the people of Scotland and where there can be no direct interference from the British state. We cannot have that campaign now, when it would necessarily involve British political parties which won’t even exist post-independence.

Why would we allow parties that are avowedly committed to denying Scotland’s independence (and even our right of self-determination) be part of a process that is relevant only to an independent Scotland?

Rather than pandering to the foolishness of individuals making a vote for independence conditional on something that can only be decided after independence, we would be better occupied challenging such folly.

Why would the SNP commit to a referendum on EU membership after independence? Why would the SNP allow itself to be herded by UKIP in the way that Cameron’s Tories were? Why would we allow the issue of EU membership to muddy the waters of the coming #indyref2 campaign when that matter has been decisively dealt with already?

The bottom line is that Yes/Leavers must make up their minds NOW whether they want decisions relating to such issues made in Scotland and by Scotland, or whether they want to join with British nationalists in handing that power to the Westminster elite – to do with as they please.

It would be a disastrous step to combine considerations of anything else with an independence referendum, since it simply opens up infinite possibilities for futile nit-picking and fissure. A field day for Unionist smokescreens and distractions that would inevitable sink indy. We should not forget the success of the EU Leave campaign in keeping the focus sharp: “bring back control”.

It is difficult to understand the position of “Yes-Leavers”, not all of whom BTW are necessarily what they publicly claim to be. Not only for the very obvious reason that Stu mentions, that WM control is considerably more oppressive upon us (Trident, foreign wars, etc.) than the light touch of the EU but also because the result of the recent EUref in Scotland was so (truly) decisive.

It seems to me the height of hypocrisy to claim to be a democratic supporter of independence but beg the imperial master in England to impose upon Scotland a decision to which the country is firmly opposed, before they can feel free again to proceed!

A pathetic and self-defeating echo of St. Augustine: “Let me have independence, Oh Lord, but not yet”.

Such an argument would be prime fodder for Unionist derision in a future indyref, a great crack in the independence side that they could and would ruthlessly exploit.

A promise to have another visit of the EU question immediate upon inependence would also fatally undermine the precious support that we are currently receiving from the EU, who can protect us from any threats of revenge from a spurned rUK.

However, the future direction of the EU itself is to some extent uncertain. It would also take at least a year or two for an independent Scotland to “find its feet”, at which time any other consideration would be an unwelcome distraction. We need a degree of stability first before being able to properly and fairly attend to wider matters.

So a reasonable compromise might be to offer the prospect of a Scotland-only EU referendum within a period of 5-8 years after independence. This would give time for everyone to judge how the EU itself is reacting to widespread public concerns about neo-liberal policies, and equally to weigh-up how the fully-detached England+ has been faring.

I voted Yes and Remain. But I am trying to look at this from the point of view of a Yes voter who voted to Leave. The Yes/Leave voter must weigh up what they feel more strongly about. If their prime motivation to vote Yes was because they believed independence would mean Scotland would be prevented from staying in or rejoining the EU by countries like Spain, then surely they would not go for an independence referendum followed by another EU referendum. The fact is Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and so the Yes/Leave voter would surely not fancy their chances of an Independent Scotland voting to leave the EU. They probably think that to ensure Scotland leaves the EU they have a better chance of achieving that by voting no to independence.

The Telegraph today threatening the Supreme Court, tell them not to defy the Brexit vote: so much for the rule of law and UK Courts making legal decisions for the UK.

Then the Times claiming EU chaos when Italian PM resigns but in reality the Italian Referendum wasn’t about being in the EU, and Italian support for the EU is still a solid majority. (Support for the EU in Europe has gone up since Brexit).

liz
Folk have all sorts of reservations over the EU but I’ve always accepted there are small minded little Scotlanders in the movement Liz. Fear, intolerance and racism are all elements of the human condition. I wouldn’t know what to do other than suggest they read a bit of Znaniecki.

link to en.wikipedia.org

I think you are correct though, that this is largely an effect of right-wing bias in the media. It is an outlook that is alien to Scotland’s historically outward looking approach to the world and our cultural identity, our (p)resbyterian inheritance, which has established the principles of inclusive local democracy in to the Scottish psyche. I see this as a national characteristic that will inevitably diminish over time, without our independence.

Presbyterian and Anglicanism offer different perspectives and have historically shaped very different cultural attitudes, IMHO.

of inclusive local democracy. .

Race and Race Theory

ABSTRACT

Race has always been a significant sociological theme, from the founding of the field and the formulation of the “classical” theoretical statements to the present. Since the 19th century, sociological perspectives on race have developed and changed, always reflecting shifts in large-scale political processes. In the “classical” period colonialism and biologistic racism held sway. As the 20th century dawned, sociology came to be dominated by US-based figures. Du Bois and the Chicago School presented the first notable challenges to the field’s racist assumptions.

In the aftermath of WWII, with the destruction of European colonialism, the rise of the civil rights movement, and the surge in migration on a world scale, the sociology of race became a central topic. The field moved towards a more critical, more egalitarian awareness of race, focused particularly on the overcoming of prejudice and discrimination. Although recognition of these problems increased and political reforms made some headway in combating them, racial injustice and inequality were not overcome.

As the global and domestic politics of race entered a new period of crisis and uncertainty, so too has the field of sociology. To tackle the themes of race and racism once again in the new millennium, sociology must develop more effective racial theory. “Racial formation” approaches can offer a starting-point here. The key tasks will be the formulation of a more adequate comparative historical sociology of race, the development of a deeper understanding of the micro-macro linkages that shape racial issues, and the recognition of the pervasiveness of racial politics in contemporary society. This is a challenging, but also exciting agenda. The field must not shrink from addressing it.

*paragraph breaks added.

link to soc.ucsb.edu

…. Or we could drop all this referendum nonsense and get back to good,if old-fashioned,representative parliamentary government.

getting out of the eu at any tie going forward would be infinitely easier than getting out of the uk.

I voted remain, but because i believed if the dice fell in the right order it would precipitate indyref2, and that is what is happening.

until we get our independence, our opinions and votes count for nothing.

but once independent, at any time going forward, whether we stay/leave in the eu is a decision we can take at any time.

opting for the Norway model, which nicola is doing at the moment, is a roll back from the position the u is in at the moment, indeed any leavers suggested this was what the uk position should be, so many of the scottish leavers will be swayed by this position. It is already a sweetner to them.

a commitment/legal requirement for any future sg for another referendum for any further move towards greater integration in the eu than the norway model to be introduced into scots law

after a yes vote in indyref2, the sg will need to negotiate a settlement with the uk and the eu, followed by a holyrood election. another referendum and/or the next holyrood election will be seen as a plebicite on the result of those negotiations. It might be wiser to separate the two, somehow,

Andrew Coulson,

I like the idea of representative parliamentary government.

Only possible, of course in an independent Scotland, free from the starkly obvious unrepresentitive tyranny of Westminster.

” there’s only one acceptable democratic way of sorting it out.”

The problem with many referendums is that the lack the option to reverse the decision. The Brexit vote, as with a vote for independence, tends to be a one-way valve. Once the dissociation is complete, it is difficult to see how the process could be reversed even if it were the wish of the majority.

One of the nonsenses of stark yes/no questions such as the EU referendum is that it is almost certainly not the democratic way to settle complicated issues. If there is a referendum it should at the end of the exit process, not at the beginning.

Hoss Mackintosh says:

Nice analysis, Rev Stu.

Indy First then we decide on EU membership – but not at the same time!

Simples.

if we win indyref2, then the subsequent holyrood election would be fought over the uk and eu settlement. that would happen anyway. it might be better to separate the issues, that way, the next holyrood election would deal with the uk settlement only. The Norway type deal satisfies nicola’s mandate but it does roll back scotlands position in the eu from where it is now, indeed, norway isnt even technically in the eu. A multi question eu referendum might be an answer

1. leave the eu altogether
yes or no
2 accept the new negotiated norway type status
yes or no
3. apply for greater eu integration, eg use the euro
yes or no

I wonder if Nicola’s been getting her EFTA/EEA ducks in a row as a way of satisfying both sides of the yes movement without the need for a 2nd EU ref?

“I don’t know if you’ve been watching the news, but Scotland IS currently going to be dragged out of the EU. So that argument would meet with hysterical laughter.”

From my limited understanding, the Scottish government would be arguing for independence in order to stay IN the EU. Following that up with a second referendum that could reverse that position, meaning we’d be out of BOTH unions (NOT the current status quo) is illogical. The Scottish Government do not support that and is it is hard to argue from their position that there should be an automatic EU ref.

“Or we could drop all this referendum nonsense and get back to good,if old-fashioned,representative parliamentary government.”

Problem is WM very rarely ever represents my political views (and those of most people north of the border).

Historians of the future will look back on these years as the most tumultuous in the history of the UK. It is teetering on the brink for reasons and those reasons stem from WM NOT being representative of the views of most people in Scotland and that WM simply does NOT respect Scotland as an equal signatory partner to the Union. That is simply not a sustainable situation. And I suspect there will be a lot of perplexed yoon faces in January after the SC’s gives its judgement.

Yes–WM tried to resolve some of these issues with the creation of devolved administrations. That they believed Devolution would help matters was just plain stupid. It was NEVER going to resolve the deep-rooted problems that afflict the UK. WM treats the UK as an incorporating union and it was NEVER thus. Only when they allow that fact into their thick heads might they have any chance of saving their pathetic union.

Though I doubt it. The traffic is all one way now. Scotland doesn’t just want its independence returned–it NEEDS it returned. The best people to fully take care of Scotland and its affairs are the people closest to it. And that is NOT WM. It is THAT simple.

Er..no..Scotland didn’t just vote to stay..we voted for the UK to stay- very different.

As a FULL INDEPENDENT EU MEMBER Scotland will thrive..we have world beating food and drink products which the Europeans crave.

@liz g – nobody’s threatening that Britain will have to suffer for leaving, that’s a Brexiter whine which isn’t impressing anyone in the EU. The reality is that when you leave a club you lose the benefits of membership. That in no way means that the EU won’t negotiate a fair trade deal with the UK.

The key result in that poll is that 44% of those who replied after weighing and removing the undecided said they’d still vote Yes.

Another point is that if the number of Don’t Knows is high enough the result would still be in the balance. Given no one really knows what kind of Brexit is on offer there might be some who can’t weigh up their support of the UK against that of the EU. There might also be some who seriously don’t want Scotland to be part of the EU.

Then again there might be some who see now that an independent Scotland would be welcomed with reasonably open arms in to the EU post independence and don’t want us tied in to some deal where our membership is so tightly bound into it being a remnant of the UK’s that we’d risk losing it if we became independent.

Not to mention that last time whenever I met a Eurosceptic Yes or DK my reply was always that I would support their right to campaign for an EU referendum after Independence but let’s get a Yes first I NEVER got an argument back. They were always perfectly happy with that.

Yes Leavers are still rational, reasonable Scots. We can bargain with them, thrash out the principles in person and online.

You are ready to concede without having the argument. If we are campaigning and polling and it is showing up as a big problem the solving of which will get us over the line then we have a fucking Vow of our own promising it. Otherwise let us try to argue it out first and see what we can do.

poll, with a massively disproportionate number – over 27% – of its respondents born outside Scotland, mostly from the rest of the UK, but it was weighted so that shouldn’t have been much of a factor

That rings alarm bells about the other 73%.

Yes, weighting should adjust the results to be more accurate. However, if their methods of choosing people were so poor that they got that wrong then they could just as easily sampled too many older people, too many Unionist voters, too many Leave voters.

What that would do is obviously reduce the samples of SNP/Yes/Remain people. Smaller sub samples will decrease the accuracy of assessing how popular those opinions are.

Weighting can only go so far to making samples reflect the overall population. It can’t extrapolate opinions from too small samples accurately.

Very interesting analysis, got us all thinking.

It’s a rare thing, but I disagree with the conclusions you’ve come to Rev and am in agreement with Mr Bell and Sutherland.

An Independent Scotland can hold Referendums on anything it damned well likes, that’s the point of it. I seriously doubt the passionate EU Leave voters will risk their chance to get out by trusting the Scottish electorate given their 62% voice.

That leaves the IndyYES/EU Leave voters… and they really have to work out their priorities. I know one couple in this group and when it comes down to it they’re for Yes.

I’m very dubious of the polls at the moment, everything is on hold till S50 is called and we know what we’re dealing with.

Some anecdotal stuff if I may… Tayside is major Berry Farming country, 25/30 years ago it was a 6 WEEK season and that depended on the weather, a cold wet one destroyed it, and the berry pickers … school children, the unemployed and Mill/Factory workers from Dundee and Glasgow, coming through for a working holiday.

Since the advent of the Poly Tunnels its a 5 MONTH season and for Tayside about 24,000 eastern europeans staff it up, in addition to the full time jobs created staffed up by locals. They’re not taking any jobs from Scottish people – thats one myth busted.

I spoke to a farmer a couple of weeks ago and asked him how the whole Brexit thing is affecting them. A lot of their produce is being exported, so the devalue of the pound is helping, but the potential loss of staff for next harvest is causing them deep concern.

Perth has one of the larger prisons on its doorstep, Medium to High security with a prison population of about 800 – the Conservative idea, that the prisoners can pick the berries is beyond laughable.

I think the farmers will be with us this time, I don’t see how they can not be.

Again, anecdotal, but the EU Nationals living here, for Indy 1, I hear they voted 70% No. Canvassers are reporting its 90% Yes now.

Speaking to a lorry driver recently, he was not the kind of person you would have expected to be politically clued up… says Brexit is a complete Cluster ..uk, and we need to get Indy or bust.

And lastly 2 working colleagues, recently moved up from England, both ex-army. Really decent, lovely people, but understandably Unionist. Given them their due, they are at least open to debate. They now say (once they’ve lost all the debating points) ‘I’m not against an Independent Scotland, I just wish they’ get it sorted’. Not a conversion, but I think their heads have dropped. Movement of a kind.

We said first time out that every Yesser was an Ambassador for Indy, well I think we’re reaping what we’ve sown. Civic, Responsible, Inventive… Keep doing what your doing folks, you are an inspiration. Big thanks to all as always.

Who Controls Scotland…

link to imgur.com

Strange survey indeed from pUkeGov.

At the very end it asks “Have you been asked to take part in the ‘National Conversation’ survey ?” – 82% reply NO, 13% reply YES and 6% NOT SURE.

For a survey that claims to have received 2 million responses (47% of the registered voters for Indy Ref 1) these are indeed strange figures.

There are (many, I believe, including myself) who would grudgingly vote to leave the UK if it meant staying in the EU.

These people (again, myself included) would NOT vote to leave the UK without knowing that doing so will mean staying in the EU.

So saying that the EU question will only be decided after independence would move people back to “No”.

And the same goes for all of the EU nationals leaving in Scotland. They wouldn’t vote to leave the UK without knowing that the EU question is settled (i.e. Scotland stays in EU).

What you are offering will tank the “Yes” vote.

after a yes win in indyref2, the next holyrood election would be seen as a vote of confidence/no confidence on the snp settlement, this is why it would be better to remove the eu issue from this election

a commitment to euref2 in the 2nd half of the next holyrood government would be a sop to yes and no voting brexiteers, I could justify another euref after indy on a number of grounds, but the point being made is that doing this might be the way to ensure indy 1st and the eu 2nd, otherwise the next HE might be seen as plebicite on both.

we need to win indyref2, negotiate our independence from the u, then ensure that an snp majority or pro indy majority win the next HE election to ensure there is no going back, a unionist majority could run indyref3 if it wanted.

what do yes brexiteers on this site think? would the certainty of another eu ref in the next HE parliament, make you ore likely to vote yes in indyref2 and snp at the next he?

I think this the point the rev is trying to make?

I can see your point Stu. But like a few have already expressed I don’t see the ‘need’ for a firm commitment to a second EU ref after a yes vote as a persuader to that ‘fabled’ 27%?

I simply do not belief that number. If it is accurate we would be directly pandering to that minority and the Leave/stay UK unionists would throw everything at indyref2 to keep those Leave/Yessers on board. In essence totally backfiring.

We can’t underestimate the air power that the BT2 would still have to shower down upon those who are obviously still influenced and feart, this would be a gift tae them.

Also canvassing Remainers during indyref2 with the possibility of an EU ref2 to follow is totally counter intuitive, sure we voted tae remain in the EU as part of UK but we also voted to remain in the EU in Indyref1?

Why would I as a Yes/Remainer vote Yes2 with the prospect of an EU2 on the immediate horizon after Indy? A 620 odd page white paper was produced during indyref1 and remaining in the EU was central to that ‘vision’. The very fact that a 2/3rds majority just voted to Remain in the EU, is testament to an indisputable majority in Scotland that wants to remain in the EU?

This is/would be pandering to the ‘right’.

Don’t get me wrong I think we’d ‘win’ an EU2, but I think we can’t leave ourselves open to having our faces rubbed right in it for literally fighting like bastards on the one hand against ‘being dragged out of the EU against our will’ and setting up Indyref2 as a sop tae those who don’t mind at all ‘being dragged out’ as they don’t see it that way?

Whit’s whitepaper2 gonnae be? A vision of two half’s?

Naw. It would undermine the SNP if they attempted this…there’s listening and understanding differing views and there’s selling out yer principles. As someone above pointed out, referendums aren’t sweeties tae be handed oot for the minority in our polity. We need look nae further than England right now for the truth of that. There was no demand. It was politicking.

If the SNP start down that road, then they’re no better than their hypocritical politician cousins in the unioinist parties.

Not a ‘gamble’ worth taking.

@CameronB Brodie says: 5 December, 2016 at 12:01 pm:

“I definitely see independence and EU membership as distinct of each other.”

The thing is that if Scotland is independent then Scotland can make up their collective democratic minds whatever Scots decide to do.

It has been my opinion, for many more years than I care to remember, but it is also my opinion that by far the most important thing that needs to come before all else is the realisation by all that the Treaty of Union is a bipartite agreement and has formed a union of kingdoms. It has not formed a country of any sort.

That may seem over simple to many Scots but consider this.
If that is not a recognised fact then there actually has not been a United Kingdom since day one of the Union and if there has not been a legal union then it is long past time The Kingdom of Scotland withdrew.

There is absolutely no doubt that in 1707 the Kingdom of England was composed of England and the English principality of Wales and the Monarch of England had been King of Ireland from 1542 and Lord over Ireland for a lot longer than that so Ireland was legally had dominion over Ireland. i.e. Ireland was an English Dominion and the Treaty of Union introduction does lay down conditions in relation to English dominions.

There is also no doubt that the three country Kingdom of England was formed before 1688 and thus subject to being a constitutional monarchy as formed then. That was thus the only change in the laws of divine right that prevailed in the Kingdom of England at time of signing the Treaty so it cannot retrospectively be applied to Scotland.

So the sovereignty of England, Wales and Ireland have only changed by Southern Ireland becoming a republic and the sovereignty of Scotland remains with the people of Scotland.

The conclusion can only be that the Westminster Parliament being also the Parliament of the country of England is contrary to the treaty. That the Parliament of England assuming over-lordship of the Kingdom of Scotland is contrary to the treaty. Splitting the union up along country lines is contrary to the treaty and these are all reason enough for Scotland – kingdom and country – to withdraw and thus end the Union of Kingdoms but has no effect upon the longer lasting union of three countries in the Kingdom of England.

The missing piece of the jigsaw is what the EU team is going to say about Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. If for instance they say that an Independent Scotland and Northern Ireland would be the continuing state and would automatically retain membership then the need for the membership question would be negated. This as with much of Brexit is unknown although Guy Verhofstat has been making encouraging noises over independence.

Why would I as a Yes/Remainer vote Yes2 with the prospect of an EU2 on the immediate horizon after Indy?

to ensure yes2 wins, to ensure the snp win the next holyrood election and put to bed the idea of the uk ever getting back together. a confusion between the uk and eu settlements might let a unionist majority back in. If we win indyref2, i dont want the chance for indyref3 to be even a remote possibility. do you?

A 620 odd page white paper was produced during indyref1 and remaining in the EU was central to that ‘vision’. The very fact that a 2/3rds majority just voted to Remain in the EU, is testament to an indisputable majority in Scotland that wants to remain in the EU?

true, but 62% voted to remain as we are vis a vis the eu, with the best will in the world and even if scotland is considered the successor state to the uk, the deal we get wont be the same as before, eg, we wont get to keep the uk rebate etc.
the snp position at the moment seems to be to adopt a Norway type solution, Norway isnt even in the eu, 62% didnt vote for that either. The Norway option was put forward by some leavers in the euref, so it is already a sop to them. ,I also voted remain, but so that it would precipitate indyref2, and it looks like i was correct to do so. I am not the only one

the point about the euref2 is that it is a sop to get brexiteers to vote yes in indyref2 and the snp in the next HE.

the subsequent euref could offer more than 1 option,
1. further eu integration, eg adopt the euro.
(a promise by the snp to offer an euref to scotland to do this after eu negotiations ight be a good tactical ploy in the negotiations)
2. accept the Norway solution
(the snp and my preference and most likely result of eu negotiations after a yes2, and the most likely winner in euref2)
3. Leave the eu
(i doubt this will win, if you are so certain scotland is so pro eu, what are you afraid of?)

People suggesting complex multi option referendums. Beware.

“… not including the AV one, which nobody cared about”

Fair point. However, I would propose it, like most referendums worldwide was conducted properly.

By properly, I mean the choice was a straight choice between status quo and a change. The choice was clear. We voted for the status quo, in terms of voting system, and we got exactly that. No change.

Contrast that to the last two, IndyRef1 and EURef.

In IndyRef1 it began as Indy (change) versus status quo, but by the polling it had evolved into Indy versus fuck knows what!

In EURef it was even worse. It was Cameron’s renegotiate of EU membership versus a completely undefined Leave. Leave to what? Leave how? Leave how much?

In both cases the winning option meant different things to different people. No prospectus, no manifesto, no plan. Those with power then went ahead and interpreted the nebulous result in a way which suited their ends.

IndyRef1 was indecisive because the vague NO package was never delivered. EURef is now in the courts.

A referendum MUST have a firmly defined proposals for anything other that status quo. If a referendum has, say two possible change options, then each must be fixed in tablets of stone well before the vote. However, the ideal referendum has to be change versus status quo. Then you get clarity.

A referendum has to produce a clear result. Anything else will just cause a constitutional crisis.

A referendum has to produce a clear result. Anything else will just cause a constitutional crisis.

the euref did produce A clear result, england wants to take back control of its borders, It is clear simply because westminster already has the power to close borders already, it doesnt need to negotiate this with anyone. however, what relation the uk would have with the eu regarding trade was not A clear result from the euref, folk didnt know what they were voting for, they still dont.

indyref1 and2 are clearly defined results, we become independent. lie norway or ireland, free to chose what relationship we have with other countries or the eu.

the euref2 in scotland could only happen after independence, indeed indy is a prerequisit.

we will know by then what voting to leave will mean, we will see this played out in england in the next few years

we will now exactly what a norway type settlement will mean, we just need to look at norway

we will also know what further eu integration, ie adopting the euro, will mean

everything very clear.

what wont be clear after a yes or no in indyref2 is what people are voting for, the eu or the uk. thats why it is important to separate the issues

The No/Leavers will never be convinced to vote Yes. It’s the Yes/Leavers that would ensure indyref2 Yes. If BT2 campaign during indyref2 on ‘SNP will promise anything to anyone even ‘jeopardising’ EU membership after a Yes vote’ that could affect the ‘solid yes’ that we currently have?

All I’m saying is this can be used against the SNP until all ye hear is that ‘noise’ over and over again.

I’m aware we can vote on anything we wish after independence. That’s a given. Just don’t ‘feel’ pandering to Leavers is the way to go to achieve that.

The SNP are currently fighting for us tae stay in the EU…lobbying all over EU to have our case recognised, for them to then caveat ‘we’ll now have another EU ref’ immediately following our successful ‘partly due to EU member states backing Scotland’ in achieving said independence, would just be embarrassing to say the least, not to be trusted to say the most.

Cat, I am sure we’d win EU2, I’m not convinced that an EU ref on the back of indyref2 as part of gaining our independence is the way to go. I’m also not convinced as I’ve stated that this tactic wouldn’t backfire on the SNP.

————————————-

People could be forgiven for not trusting polls…hardly an argument against but certainly a valid observation given the ‘fatally flawed’ analysis of all polling companies in recent times. We’re correct tae be sceptical and factor in that this poll may in fact not reflect the true picture.

soz, i didnt see Derick fae Yell’s previous post

but i think we need to separate the uk and eu issues

Folk keep dragging Greece into the EU-bad case. That country was engaged in an unaffordable arms-race with Turkey & its finances were chaotic (a bit like somewhere else we know!)but the EU is a handy scapegoat! eh no!

Why would we need a second EU referendum when a possible second Indyref would answer whether we left the UK or went our own way to decide our own future remaining Europe ? Why should we even bother pandering to Leave voting Yes voters when they would prefer to stick with Westminster and its move to the extreme right wing of politics ? With so called friends like these…..

I’m also not convinced as I’ve stated that this tactic wouldn’t backfire on the SNP.

I agree about no leavers (and yes remainers)not being convinced to change, regardless

but I dont think this is a zero sum game, yes may have lost as many supporters over the eu as no have lost over the eu.

the point about this article is what tactic gives yes the best chance to win indyref2, stu merely suggests that an euref2 might do this

Sort of O/T
People who think the EU rules on vacuum cleaners deprive them of a machine fit to do the job might want to read this.

link to coolproducts.eu

This is the sort of information the MSM never puts our way.

Just don’t ‘feel’ pandering to Leavers is the way to go to achieve that.

if we dont we might not achieve that, if we dont then pandering to leavers is all we have got to look forward to.

an indyref victory is all i really care about, if offering scots brexiters (any who were yessers) an option of a future referendum on the eu negotiations too much of a pandering exercise to help win indyref2, and an snp victory in the next he to ensure there is no indyref3?

sturgeon could also use the euref2 as a means of promoting further integration into the eu as a negotiating tactic with the eu, the norway style settlement as only an interim position

Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
5 December, 2016 at 2:41 pm

‘That’s a great strategy if your objective is to get a lot more Tory and Labour MPs elected in Scotland…..’

No, my objective would be to reinstate representative parliamentary democracy. Not because, as it’s operated here in the past, it is such a wonderfully efficient and benign system, but because the institutional anarchy that we have now is a damned site worse.

I agree with Callum staying in the EU offers huge possibilities for relocation of jobs from Canary Wharf to the banks of the Clyde or Edinburgh Park and would be a strong argument in Indyfef2. However as I said above until the EU lets us know what they will give an Independent Scotland in terms of membership all this is conjecture.

Muscleguy brings up an extremely important point:

@Muscleguy: Yes Leavers are still rational, reasonable Scots. We can bargain with them, thrash out the principles in person and online.

The vast majority of Yes Leavers understand this: the problem is useful idiots like Jim Fairlie take the 1 million Leave voters, and the third or so of SNP voters, as evidence of a gargantuan split in the independence movement that simply doesn’t exist. Why wasn’t there one at the last SNP conference for Edinburgh West’s motion explicitly affirming Scotland’s place in the EU like there have been in the past for fracking, NATO, even things like giving public schools’ charitable status? All we got was Jerry Silver and a handful of others kicking up a fuss: the motion was passed easily.

If Yes Leavers want a Scottish referendum on EU membership, then the only way to do that is with a Scotland outside the EU. That is all Yes Leavers need to know. If being outside the EU is more important to them than being a sovereign nation, then that’s fine – just don’t pretend you’re pro-independence.

The only reason anyone would vote No because of the EU is if they don’t believe an indy Scotland would vote to leave the EU – and their hatred of the EU overcomes their desire for Scotland to become independent, to the point where they propogate the uber-British Nationalist myth that the SNP are proposing “a false choice” between two unions.

No, we can’t just shout at them and say they’re stupid – but neither can we indulge them when they’re talking complete balderdash. To me, the Scottish Government offering ScotEURef following indyref2 simply confirms what Jim Fairlie and the likes are actively criticising the SNP for, and what you’re trying to avoid – tying independence to the EU, instead of the constitutional question itself.

As you say, it’s tricky – but this is one of those rare occasions where you’re much more patient than I am!

Theoretically that works, I just think you end up with a very messy and voter-confusing campaign. Half the Yes campaigners are campaigning Yes Remain, half are campaigning Yes Leave. Yes campaigners will knock on your door in the afternoon arguing one thing, then more Yes campaigners will knock on your door in the evening arguing something totally different. (And much the same goes for the No campaigners.) People won’t know what the hell’s going on.

Alternatively, there could be one main Yes campaign that concentrates only on the first question, leaving Yes/Remain and Yes/Leave to smaller campaigns. A taster, if you will, of the possibilities of an independent Scotland.

This leaves the No Campaign in an awkward position: they can only logically campaign for a No vote, and that’s it. There’d be no point in a No Remain/No Leave, becaue we just had that referendum. So do they just campaign for a No vote and leave it at that, or do they support an indy Scotland remaining/leaving as the “least worst option”?

@Andrew Coulson: Or we could drop all this referendum nonsense and get back to good,if old-fashioned,representative parliamentary government.

Not a big advocate of regressing back to the days when our elected representatives sent millions of our budget back to the Treasury, our First Minister colluding with the Prime Minister to hand thousands of miles of Scottish territory to England in secret, and actively working to prevent the most popular party from enacting its manifesto commitments. That’s what tended to happen in the “good, if old-fashioned” days.

I wonder if Robert Peffers is following the Supreme Court Brexit case. I have been listening to some of the Gov case, while I am waiting to hear how Scotland comes into it. Still a bit early yet though.

While the Scottish Government (SG) talks about the 62% who voted to stay in the EU and the democratic mandate this gives them to pursue the means of staying in the EU, it also talks about the desirability and benefits of staying within the single market which is not necessarily the same as staying in the EU. Possibly the main political benefit of remaining within the single market but not within the EU, through EFTA perhaps, would be SG control of fisheries – not that fisheries contribute hugely to the economy but, where they do, they do in the more remote and rural areas. So, while using the chaos of Brexit to leverage Indyref2, there may be other considerations taking place which would have to be decided upon post-independence.

Meanwhile, back to the popcorn and deckchair while Mayhem ensues darn sarth.

Re mr thms

This guy has repeated in several comments on both this and other threads that The Scotland Act 2016 made The Scottish Parliament/Government permanent.

Nothing could be further than the truth.

Although permanence was included in the list of requested powers our colonial masters specifically refused to include it in the Act meaning that they can abolish Holyrood at the stroke of a pen as they did to the Stormont government in the 70s. with the introduction of Direct Rule.

Ahve jist loast ma supreme court link, could someday kindly repost link…ma laptop’s doon and it’s a bloody nuisance trying tae find things on this tiny HTC screen…much appreciation in advance 🙂

brewsed says:

“remaining within the single market but not within the EU, through EFTA perhaps, would be SG control of fisheries – not that fisheries contribute hugely to the economy”.

We don’t really know how much fisheries, or farming, contribute to the economy or how it could developed, because we don’t control the policy or revenues. We do know it could feed us and we do know it’s not safe with Westminster.

We don’t really know what our industries and assets contribute for the same reason, we only know bits of what the Treasury tells us.

gus1940,

As someone else usefully pointed out in a previous thread, you also have to factor into that issue Fluffy’s justifications to the HoC for retaining the word “normally” in the Scotland Act 2016.

The poor unfortunate poodle may well have in effect conceded permanence unintentionally by his assurances. Words such as “hoist” and “petard” come to mind.

Hee hee. Unintended consequences…

Link I’m using is this: 🙂

link to supremecourt.uk

For those not watching, the governments case is crumbling already, HMGuv getting skelped

Brilliant call me dave, thank you! 🙂

Court adjourned!

Anyone tell me what they were talking aboot?

Why not just one ref. Options leaveUk/ leave eu, leaveuk/ stay eu, stay uk/ stay eu and stay uk/ leave eu. Could even have preference voting. Our electorate are smart enough to deal with this