Jump to content

Freedom for Tooting! And other similar nutty fringe communities


chrisp65

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Personally, I think that would be an incorrect take.

I don’t. I mean it keeps the SNP in power, keeps their vote high. The actual practicalities of independence, which work strongly against them can be ignored. And for the tories, it’s great too. The SNP keeps them in power nationally, because they’re keeping Labour’s numbers down.

win win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don’t. I mean it keeps the SNP in power, keeps their vote high. The actual practicalities of independence, which work strongly against them can be ignored. And for the tories, it’s great too. The SNP keeps them in power nationally, because they’re keeping Labour’s numbers down.

win win.

I think that sums up the problem in a nutshell.

The take that this is just a bunch of opportunists ringing what they can out of a situation, not really being serious about really wanting to leave. 

It does appear to be genuinely misunderstood ‘outside’ of that movement. Which again, in the short term, does work for everyone.  

 

There’s a very very easy way to flush out these pretenders and put them back in their place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think that sums up the problem in a nutshell.

The take that this is just a bunch of opportunists ringing what they can out of a situation, not really being serious about really wanting to leave. 

It does appear to be genuinely misunderstood ‘outside’ of that movement. Which again, in the short term, does work for everyone.  

 

There’s a very very easy way to flush out these pretenders and put them back in their place. 

I think the SNP do want to leave, they are nationalists after all. I also think Sturgeon would love to be the one that got it done, similar to Farage and his ambitions with UKIP. But I think she is canny enough to see how the current arrangement suits her and her party so well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt for one second that the people who joined what is essentially a single-issue movement really believe in getting that issue over the line. They really, really want to leave the UK, and that is not in question.

The point is that a] they do not have the ability to grant themselves a referendum legally, and b] they know an illegal referendum would be a political disaster. So their degree of enthusiasm for leaving isn't a particularly important input to the question of when they next get a chance to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

they know an illegal referendum would be a political disaster

Would it?

I could see a situation in the not too distant future (i.e. 5- 10 years) where an unofficial (rather than illegal) referendum is a political necessity for the SNP.

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Would it?

I could see a situation in the not too distant future (i.e. 5- 10 years) where an unofficial (rather than illegal) referendum is a political necessity for the SNP.

It's hard to imagine that it could be combined with accession to the EU, because it would provide a perfect pretext for eg Spain to reject the application.

Of course, if the SNP decide to push for independence and don't care about future EU accession, then this doesn't have to be a concern, but a] that removes the 'Brexit changed everything and that's why need another referendum now' justification, and b] presumably risks dispiriting a lot of liberal-minded supporters of independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't doubt for one second that the people who joined what is essentially a single-issue movement really believe in getting that issue over the line. They really, really want to leave the UK, and that is not in question.

The point is that a] they do not have the ability to grant themselves a referendum legally, and b] they know an illegal referendum would be a political disaster. So their degree of enthusiasm for leaving isn't a particularly important input to the question of when they next get a chance to do so.

I agree it’s a single issue movement, I wouldn’t see that as a weakness in any way. But the Scots can only leave the Union, if the English allow it? I really really want someone from Westminster to spell that out. Preferably a tory, but Labour would also do.

Surely these days, they could just decide to break that one particular law, in a very specific way.

I think the Unionists and British Nationalists need to game out some new catch phrases and strategies, because I’m not convinced the current arguments are actually helping their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

The take that this is just a bunch of opportunists ringing what they can out of a situation, not really being serious about really wanting to leave

It might read like it, but that's not my take, as it happens.  I believe the SNP absolutely wants independence, and that Plaid do too. I believe that other parties will or may go along with that if they think it's popular.

But, the SNP know that independence has massive problems.  Revenue, currency, EU membership, taxation, defence and so on. Right now it suits them not to have to address those issues. So that's more my viewpoint.

The other factor is a bit like the Brexit argument- the loudest voices are against membership of the Union, and no-one is making the case for membership, with occasional interventions from hated figures only exacerbating that problem.

The fact that the UK government is so dire, so incompetent, so loot and plunder and that the main opposition has been so useless only strengthens the hand of the SNP and of nationalist sentiment generally- the same effect is apparent where I live in the north.

So sometimes a genuine sense of grudge, coupled with conviction for a cause is nourished when the actual practical task and issues relating to that end objective are close to insurmountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I agree it’s a single issue movement, I wouldn’t see that as a weakness in any way. But the Scots can only leave the Union, if the English allow it? I really really want someone from Westminster to spell that out. Preferably a tory, but Labour would also do.

Surely these days, they could just decide to break that one particular law, in a very specific way.

I think the Unionists and British Nationalists need to game out some new catch phrases and strategies, because I’m not convinced the current arguments are actually helping their cause.

What are the alternatives to a referendum granted by Westminster? Well, there's an unofficial referendum, but that runs into problems with regards to EU accession as I say above.

Of course, they could always declare war, but I'm assuming that's not on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's hard to imagine that it could be combined with accession to the EU, because it would provide a perfect pretext for eg Spain to reject the application.

Of course, if the SNP decide to push for independence and don't care about future EU accession, then this doesn't have to be a concern, but a] that removes the 'Brexit changed everything and that's why need another referendum now' justification, and b] presumably risks dispiriting a lot of liberal-minded supporters of independence.

I think you may be viewing it through the prism of now and the previous few years rather than imagining a situation where things may get worse in NI (NI protocol issues, &c.) specifically and worse in all the other nations due to issues surrounding devolution and Brexit-related legislation (both the struff that is going through now and any future secondary legislation that may quite possibly ride roughshod over any currently accepted devolution settlements).

What I'm talking about is a situation that arises where the SNP are almost forced in to a vote ('just to show how the Scottish electorate feel' - so something unofficial rather than illegal, though I accept that this might require some logistical shenanigans) by the situation overall in the UK and specifically by a continued deterioration in attitude of the UK government to devolution. A case of if we don't show that this has crossed the line now then there won't be a line to look for in future situation.

The EU accession would become a secondary issue in such a situation. I don't see the EU accession possibility (or not) as a sine qua non when it comes to discussion of independence if the situation becomes as bad as it might possibly get.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I think you may be viewing it through the prism of now and the previous few years rather than imagining a situation where things may get worse in NI (NI protocol issues, &c.) specifically and worse in all the other nations due to issues surrounding devolution and Brexit-related legislation (both the struff that is going through now and any future secondary legislation that may quite possibly ride roughshod over any currently accepted devolution settlements).

What I'm talking about is a situation that arises where the SNP are almost forced in to a vote ('just to show how the Scottish electorate feel' - so something unofficial rather than illegal, though I accept that this might require some logistical shenanigans) by the situation overall in the UK and specifically by a continued deterioration in attitude of the UK government to devolution. A case of if we don't show that this has crossed the line now then there won't be a line to look for in future situation.

The EU accession would become a secondary issue in such a situation. I don't see the EU accession possibility (or not) as a sine qua non when it comes to discussion of independence if the situation becomes as bad as it might possibly get.

Fair enough. I understand what you're saying. I guess my honest response is that I just don't expect the next few years to play out like that, but I accept it's a possibility.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

by a continued deterioration in attitude of the UK government to devolution

That's an interesting phrase. The UK government can really have only 3 possible positions - for, against, or neutral. Almost by definition, the UK government has to govern in the interests of the whole of the UK. So if devo would in their view, say, benefit Scotland, but harm the UK as a whole, or harm both Scotland and the rest of the UK, then "deterioration" is solely in the eyes of the beholder (nationalists) isn't it? Everyone else might call it something different.  And a similar logic surely applies to the other positions. I think I'm asking what's behind your use of that term? Are you really talking about the general incompetence and tone from the current tories?

Another point us the notion that we just keep having indie refs until the SNP (or whoever) gets the answer it wants. I mean surely that's not the way to manage things? ( not saying you're proposing that, just riffing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, blandy said:

That's an interesting phrase. The UK government can really have only 3 possible positions - for, against, or neutral. Almost by definition, the UK government has to govern in the interests of the whole of the UK. So if devo would in their view, say, benefit Scotland, but harm the UK as a whole, or harm both Scotland and the rest of the UK, then "deterioration" is solely in the eyes of the beholder (nationalists) isn't it? Everyone else might call it something different.  And a similar logic surely applies to the other positions. I think I'm asking what's behind your use of that term? Are you really talking about the general incompetence and tone from the current tories?

Another point us the notion that we just keep having indie refs until the SNP (or whoever) gets the answer it wants. I mean surely that's not the way to manage things? ( not saying you're proposing that, just riffing).

That's the crux of the problem for me. The uncertainty of having this constantly has to be a consideration whenever UK-based or international companies choose where to base themselves. It's an argument that was made when the EU ref was ongoing and it's an issue here.

 

I believe we've come to a point where the union in it's current form can't continue - as much as elements in westminster would like to ignore that reality. The only way to save it is some form of constitutional reform whereby we get more decentralisation (possibly in the form of a more loose "federal" style system). Abolishing the lords and setting up a proper elected "second chamber" where the devolved regions could have greater say in westminster affairs is a start. I say "regions" because this will only work if we get the same in England too. The people of the Midlands, NE, NW feel as left behind by the south as Scotland/Wales. Putting something like that together and then to a vote would split the extreme seperatist vote from those who are simply dissolutioned with the current status quo...the SNP/Plaid offer these people an alternative and I believe you can't win them back with more of the same.

I very much doubt we'll get to that point though now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

It might read like it, but that's not my take, as it happens.  I believe the SNP absolutely wants independence, and that Plaid do too. I believe that other parties will or may go along with that if they think it's popular.

But, the SNP know that independence has massive problems.  Revenue, currency, EU membership, taxation, defence and so on. Right now it suits them not to have to address those issues. So that's more my viewpoint.

The other factor is a bit like the Brexit argument- the loudest voices are against membership of the Union, and no-one is making the case for membership, with occasional interventions from hated figures only exacerbating that problem.

The fact that the UK government is so dire, so incompetent, so loot and plunder and that the main opposition has been so useless only strengthens the hand of the SNP and of nationalist sentiment generally- the same effect is apparent where I live in the north.

So sometimes a genuine sense of grudge, coupled with conviction for a cause is nourished when the actual practical task and issues relating to that end objective are close to insurmountable.

 

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What are the alternatives to a referendum granted by Westminster? Well, there's an unofficial referendum, but that runs into problems with regards to EU accession as I say above.

Of course, they could always declare war, but I'm assuming that's not on the table.

 

First up: I’m not any sort of spokesblob for Scotland obviously, my ideas are exactly that, my rambling ideas.

It’s been mentioned up stream that the SNP are a single issue movement, and I think that’s correct. They have done well so far not to get caught up in discussing EU membership or currency or defence, or when they do, just give it that glossy glow of we can come to an amicable deal without any real problems. A lesson learned from Brexit, where howling errors and giant holes in the plan could be glossed over by waving a pastie or winning at the rugger.

Single issue: out. 

Morning after: let the sub divisions and splinter parties begin and let people decide if they want nukes, euros, dollars, chlorinated chicken, pink passports.

The problem is, there is a very unrepresentative one way street of broken promises. Remember when Scotland couldn’t leave because England said staying in the UK was the only way the EU positive Scots could remain in the EU? How’s that one panning out?

Again with the language, ‘granted by Westminster’, if at all possible, I’d like Rees Mogg to say that, whilst wearing a monocle, top hat and tails.

Get out first, don’t predicate leaving on what mood Spain will adopt. It isn’t about being in the EU, it’s about not being dictated to by a Westminster always at odds with what Scotland wants.

If you worry about currency and interest rates and size on the world stage and who will supply air cover and where will the fuel come from, well best stop voting for anything and let the English voters decide everything with their 80% share of Westminster votes.

To my knowledge, and I’m happy to be corrected, no country that was too small, too poor, too northern, too naive or too anything to survive on their own, has ever asked to be re taken by Britain?

The Welsh version is a slightly different model, and twenty or thirty years behind. But they aren’t reliant on Plaid, like the equivalent cause is reliant on the SNP. It’s a slightly different model and includes four or five tiny political parties under one banner. But again, they’ve latched on to the principle of out first, debate the currency and passport colour second.

I actually think next year’s Welsh Government elections could see Plaid lose seats whilst the independence movement gets bigger and bigger. It needs a truly Welsh Labour Party to really turn in to a genuine prospect here. Not a Welsh Labour Party staring at the fax machine, awaiting instruction. From Westminster. 

Similar to Snowy, I don’t see the next few years post Brexit being the time when Scots think separatism would be a mistake.

It’s no more ‘nationalist’ to want to run your own affairs, than it’s ‘nationalist’ to insist you cannot. It’s not about ‘nationalism’ in that negative sense, it’s the bloody opposite, it’s a desire to join in, be part of the family of nations, share. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@chrisp65 to the extent that you're making a moral case for independence, it's absolutely fine, and I think good. I don't particularly agree with it, but you don't have to persuade me, and clearly lots of people *do* agree. But I have to challenge you on the stuff about waiting until the morning after:

33 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Get out first, don’t predicate leaving on what mood Spain will adopt. It isn’t about being in the EU, it’s about not being dictated to by a Westminster always at odds with what Scotland wants.

If you worry about currency and interest rates and size on the world stage and who will supply air cover and where will the fuel come from, well best stop voting for anything and let the English voters decide everything with their 80% share of Westminster votes.

Firstly, on the EU - it is the SNP's policy that Scotland should both leave the UK *and* rejoin the EU. If you don't think they should want that, that's fine, but that's what they say they want and what they are selling to voters. On that basis, the question of how Scotland leaves the UK is relevant to the extent that it dictates their chances of rejoining the EU, and it is in that context that I mention it. Maybe it seems 'unfair' that the government in Madrid get a say in whether a country is admitted to the club, but those are the rules of the club that the SNP want to rejoin, so.

Secondly, if Scotland leaves via a referendum - as it very much should, more of which in a minute - then no matter how appealing 'leave the practicalities until after' feels, it will not work. This is because there will be a campaign period, and unionists will ask questions about these practicalities during that period. This is not some wild prediction, it's exactly what happened in 2014, and enough people did not find the SNP's answers convincing that they failed to win the referendum.

I think this is a key point:

37 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

it’s a desire to join in, be part of the family of nations

This is laudable, but - and I just have to put this bluntly - it is Scotland's place in 'the family of nations' that is at stake here. If Scotland's people and politicians had no desire for anything more than de facto autonomy come what may, then it is the easiest thing in the world to become a 'breakaway republic', and if they simply unilaterally declared independence today they could be 'enjoying' the successes of Kosovo or Transnistria tomorrow afternoon. I assume, however, that such a future is very much not what Scottish people want, and that even if they don't want to remain in the EU (again, this is not the SNP's position or the tenor of the political debate in Scotland) or NATO, presumably they would like to be in the UN and have a passport that gets you into other countries and so on. I really think people are underestimating how important it is for Scotland's exit process not just to be 'legitimate' in Scottish eyes, or even in British eyes, but *seen to be* legitimate around the world., and frankly it's not only Jacob Rees-Mogg who has noted this; Nicola Sturgeon absolutely has too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I think I'm asking what's behind your use of that term?

That they are trying to effectively row back on already settled devolved matters by various means including being very underhand and potentially using the hugely wide powers conferred on Ministers via secondary legislation by Brexit legislation.

So it's not a case of the new government's ideological position (whether Johnson thinks it's a disaster or not) but that they are not accepting of the current situation and, in a similar way to almost everything else, are intent on changing it not by persuasion, argument and merit but because the power is in their hands and they couldn't give a shit about the consequences.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Another point us the notion that we just keep having indie refs until the SNP (or whoever) gets the answer it wants. I mean surely that's not the way to manage things? ( not saying you're proposing that, just riffing).

Though we can. That's how things (should) work. If the mood changes then a new vote can and should happen otherwise we're in a situation where a snapshot at a particular time binds all future populations ad inf. and that obviously would be completely unsatisfactory. Okay this may return us to the 'once in a generation' thing but that is about as definitive as the length of a piece of string and about as silly.

If the mood of an electorate changes such that its prior determination on a subject might well be reasonably in question (and that reasonably may come about via massive opinion polls in favour, or the repeated return of a party or parties with that specific aim in their manifesto(s) arguing that the mood has changed or an unofficial ballot that suggests that the result of the referendum of one year may not be the view ten years later).

On the subject of referendums for altering constitutional matters, I wouldn't have them as a simple majority but some sort of super majority but that only affects my take on the validity of the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Though we can. That's how things (should) work. If the mood changes then a new vote can and should happen otherwise we're in a situation where a snapshot at a particular time binds all future populations ad inf. and that obviously would be completely unsatisfactory.

That's what an eventual vote to Leave would kind of do, isn't it. Kind of "it's settled, we left". Unless we end up with the okey cokey, in out, in out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's what an eventual vote to Leave would kind of do, isn't it. Kind of "it's settled, we left". Unless we end up with the okey cokey, in out, in out...

For me, this is the point of the 'super majority' that snowychap mentioned. To my mind, if you have a lopsided outcome, where if one side loses they can keep asking the question forever, while if they win, they win once and for all the first time, then it makes sense to restrict the avenue for 'once and for all' victory in such a manner that it determines the nation really does want to take that path. The best way to restrict it would be a super-majority requirement of 2/3 or 3/4 of voters or whatever, commonly used for constitutional amendments all around the world. Sadly, however, Cameron did not impose this in 2014, and it would now be (somewhat correctly) portrayed as cheating and running frit to use different rules the next time.

It's for that reason that I have much more time for the 'once in a generation' line that snowychap doesn't like. If the voting *margin* can't be restricted, then it makes sense to restrict the *frequency* with which the ballot is held. Obviously 'a generation' is not a particularly meaningful unit of time - and it would have been better to be more explicit about what it meant at the time - but I don't think it's completely unreasonable, and they're not lying when they say they said it at the time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an electorate is split pretty close to 50-50 then there is going to be a constant call to hold referendums. If independence gets up in one of them then it would just switch to being a constant call for a 'rejoin' referendum (which will likely apply to Brexit just as much as 'Scotxit').  Ether a super majority or a time limit between referendums is a pretty sensible idea to maintain some sort of stability.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â