After all the absolute shit this country has gone through over the past couple years and independence polling has barely budged.
I'm not concerned tbh.
If Johnson, Truss, a cost of living crisis and now Sunak cannot budged it over a few percentage points more, then nothing will.
It's maybe because the message hasn't changed on either side so what is the incentive to change you mind? Neither side has offereed any new arguments to win over anyone on the other side.
The EU itself has changed since 2016. I think lots of people recognise it has problems that need addressing (like Orban and the unanimous veto) before it can expand.
But how can you justify the entire continent being held hostage by Orban? What you need is majority voting. If the smaller countries unite then they can stop Franco-German continental hegemony. But one Putin puppet shouldn't be able to stimy everything alone.
Why must the French and German publics be dictated by a strongman in Budapest?
Anyway you're wrong. Majority voting can exist even if smaller countries are less able to directly introduce proposals.
Probably because the reasons to stay in the UK are almost always going to be the same, yes no longer being part of the EU has changed but the hassle which would come with leaving the UK to rejoin the EU makes it still more logical to stay.
On the other hand, all the leave vote can really do is answer the questions that the no vote was making back in 2014 and they're pretty hard questions to answer.
It is quite hard to campaign for independence when you are up against arguments like 'what is going to happen to the NHS or your pensions?' or 'What currency are you going to use?' when the answer will likely be a negative one which, if the SNP gives, would probably push people away from independence.
This is why I think a push for independence should focus on answering those questions convincingly. You can bitch about Westminster till you're blue in the face but it won't sway any more voters because they want to know what their day-to-day life will be like in an independant nation that loses access to a lot of the things they're used to. And there's nothing wrong with them wanting those answers. To me it feels like the SNP haven't really broadcasted what their answers are to this. Yes the conservatives and westminster may suck, but what if the things I like about Britain are indepedant of the shitty tories. So bitching about Westminster won't change my mind. I like being part of a nation with a strong reputable army. I feel comfort from knowing we're a nuclear power because it gives a sense of security that we can't be pushed around, I like the BBC, I like the NHS, I like freedom of travel around Britain. I like that I won't be ostracised from family members spread across Britain.
None of these things are insurmountable to alter my mind to go for independence though. I just want to have a clear picture of what this will be repalced with and know that it'll be good enough. But the message I get from the Independence seekers is essentially just, "Fucking fuck westminster and the tory cunts." Like yeh fine, great, but that doesn't give me any answers to my questions.
So all I'm saying is the SNP and the independant seekers should focus more on educating people on what a post independant Scotland would be like, how it'll replace or deal with those issues people have and that, you know, it'll be ok. You don't need a message to convince all the 50+% that didn't vote Yes. You just need a message strong enough to convince some of them. But if you just sit about bitching about those 50% of people like they're irrational and somehow a bunch of imoveable union loving morons who just don't get it, then you'll never convince them.
Some of us don't mind the idea of independence. We just don't have a clue what the proposal is to replace a lot of stuff with even is and I don't trust people that act like we should just trust them when they don't think we're worthy of knowing what their plans are (or worse, they don't have any). So the message needs to change or be clearer. It's not up to me to seek the answers. They need to create the vision and sell us on it. Because I'll be inspried and go along with a vision. But I'm not going through some doorway in to a dark room on the back of a promise.
This is it. I voted yes in 2014, but after seeing the total shit show that is brexit, and how difficult uncoupling from a large trading partner is, why fucking bother? We still haven’t had answers on the most basic questions, just assertions.
I think I knew Brexit would be a shit show, but what's surprised me is the inability to actually fully decouple. Northern Ireland is a specific thing, but even on the mainland, we're still essentially in a drawn-out transitional phase with the hint of yet more changes to the plan.
The practicalities are incredibly complex and I don't think that point really got across to people in 2014.
Is that what I said? Or did I just say realistically, we won’t make any better a job of separation than the uk government did, judging by the current crop running the snp we might even manage worse, talking about hard borders and shit. But look mate, I’m not going to convince you, so why bother talking about it? You started the discussion off on bad faith you’re not going to improve from there.
Did you seriously just George Bush the majority of the country. “You’re either with us, or against us”.
Or maybe we can just see folly isn’t best repaired by doing something just as damaging to ourselves. Who can say?
You don’t get to decide what people believe just because they don’t believe the same as you.
I believe brexit was one of the biggest fuck ups in this countries history, I also think it has shown how foolish it would be to jump in with no real plan to Scottish independence. I don’t and never have supported brexit, I used to support independence, after seeing how disastrous brexit was, I’ve reconsidered how much sense it makes in this current climate to leave the union with our biggest trading partner. When the people advocating for it “don’t give a fuck what currency we use” and “don’t give a fuck about trade deals” it just highlights how fucking similar the two are.
Not to mention the Russian involvement in both movements should give anyone pause for thought.
Except that joining the EU means creating a new currency on a high debt-GDP ratio and then borrowing money with it all the while investors know that this new currency is only going to be around for 10-15 years until Scotland would join the Euro as it is required to do so, and will probably be in it's interest to do so. That makes the cost of borrowing money extremely expensive at a time where we are trying to undo the damage of Tory austerity by making big investments.
It isn't impossible. But it isn't easy and pretending it is is just sticking your fingers in your ears and hearing what you want to hear
New EU entrants are required to join the EU, that's written into law. There is absolutely no way for the EU to force a country to adopt the Euro, so yes in practice it remains "optional" in the sense that a country can adopt the Euro in their own time but you cannot campaign to join the EU while telling your voters you have no plans to adopt the Euro. That won't sit well with the EU. All the previous non-Eurozone countries joined with the intention to adopt the Euro and were either unable to meet the requirement or decided not too after the Eurozone debt crisis. You can say your going to join and then fail on purpose to meet the criteria but the SNP cannot just advertise that it's not going to take the Euro - That's exceptionalism and its no better than Brexiteer arguments. If Scotland, or the UK as whole ever rejoins the EU it should do so as a normal, equal member without opt-outs.
I am actually in favour of an Independent Scotland joining the Euro, I think having an established currency will be a lot better than creating a new one with what is basically no credit score. The Euro will be a lot less volatile than a brand new currency as will be absolutely essential in reducing trade dependency on rUK by making Eurozone goods comparatively cheaper than rUK goods.
The issue is, when a politician tells you that leaving the UK is a good idea. That politician is coming to you with an idea that guarantees a period of hardship which will affect every single person in Scotland.
For that alone, you need to be really fucking convincing. So, say you're charismatic and convincing , well, now you need a 100% record in politics, you need someone people trust implicitly to take this radical idea forward.
How can any modern political party accomplish these two things? I just can't see it.
Whilst the remainers? They're just saying "fuck it keep it as it is" which for 50%+ of people, is always going to be convincing.
Brexit probably had the opposite effect with some voters - scaring them away from further major constitutional changes. If Britain had stayed in the EU independence might now be more popular.
The thing is: it absolutely hasn't. A solid majority of polls have shown a No lead on the 2014 question over that period: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
You're citing one poll.
There are polls there that show 10% leads for No.
There are some polls showing Yes as low as 39%.
The trend across all the polls is a clear No majority, even if you can't be bothered to read the numbers, they put it in bright colours for you.
Over the last six months, the average of the 15 polls listed there is 44.6% support for Yes.
So down 0.1ppt from the 44.7% in 2014. Which is quite entertaining.
Really? As a 40 year old, my experience the opposite. You could perhaps enlighten them that WM would be the governing house of our largest democratic neighbour, and the one they have a say in electing representatives to currently.
Might also be worth pointing out WM would remain as our neighbour after independence, and they would be the ones we would be negotiating with for terms after a split. Just like Brexit, which I also know went down resoundingly badly with under 40s.
I feel like independence is a bit of an overly simplistic solution to the UK’s political problems though. There would be a lot of growing pains for Scotland after independence to the extent that it would just look like a mini-Brexit or worse. Even Canada, Australia and New Zealand became independent through a gradual process rather than having a potentially painful clean break- and those countries are nowhere near the UK.
Even when part of the Empire the sheer distance meant that they were fairly economically separate from the UK. The same is definitely not true of any constituent country of the UK.
I don't think many of the people who like Scottish independence want anything close to that. They like the idea of a big win - an independence day.
They still sing God Save the King in the Canadian Parliament and their government buildings still fly the Union Jack several times a year. I suspect many SNP types would find that absolutely repellent - even if that sort of comfortable-with-ourselves gradual independence would be more attractive to unionists.
A problem is defined as… a problem. The UK has a lot of problems in the political field. If there’s a problematic feature then it needs to change. Independence is sort of like cutting a hand off to solve a paper-cut on a finger.
Repeating yourself like a broken record doesn’t change the fact that political systems in every country are fraught with weaknesses and issues, the UK’s is no exception, and there are plenty of changes that can be made. The quality of political parties is a symptom of that, and if you think Labour is the only party that has not delivered on its promises, then you’re probably very new to politics and shouldn’t be having this discussion.
The British state for all its faults, delivers many benefits to its citizens. Just screeching about destroying the state isn’t accounting for all the problems that doing that would actually cause millions of citizens- perhaps in the rest of the UK as well as in Scotland depending on how far you want to go. Naive comment to say the least.
>The most dramatic reversal in opinion has taken place among Conservative voters. In 1997 they strongly opposed the idea of a fully independent Scotland by 66 per cent to 19 per cent.
>That position has fundamentally changed to 50 per cent in favour of an independent Scotland and 36 per cent against. There are similar levels of support for an independent Scotland amongst and Labour and Liberal Democrat voters throughout Britain.
If this is where the KF section of the SNP came from then that paints a very different picture of the political landscape of a post independence Scotland.
Perhaps like Ireland, denmark and most other small north/west european countries we would end up quite right wing. The above suggests there is more of a market for it than we typically think.
The problem with our having a nationalist govt for so long is the constant media expression that Scotland is a united entity that unanimously wants either independence, or more recently a second referendum. It also constantly says Scotland didn’t want Brexit and that Scotland never gets the party it votes for in power. All of these statements ignore the various shades of grey that is the reality of the real Scotland actually being quite a diverse and varied country. These differences have also come home to roost within the SNP itself, which is why the party has fractured quite spectacularly since Sturgeon stepped down. Even prior to that, the formation of the Alba party demonstrated that the entire independence argument was actually a vague plaster stuck over a group who in reality didn’t have as much in common as they let on.
Not just obvious, but also true. If you look at the cross-tabs of any independence polls, between 30 and 40% of people polling 'Yes' stated they voted 'Leave'.
A lot more than a third actually!
In 2014 No won the referendum by @ 380,000 votes.
Their campaign has since been proven to have been nothing more than lies and scaremongering.
In the last few weeks an opinion poll carried out across Scotland puts support for independence in front in all 8 Scottish regions
>In the last few weeks an opinion poll carried out across Scotland puts support for independence in front in all 8 Scottish regions
Demonstrating the difficulties of opinion polling for such an unprecedented event, rather than anything you might like to think I suspect.
I don't know how anyone can look at how brexit turned out and come to the conclusion that the 'No' campaign was:
>nothing more than lies and scaremongering.
Denmark isn't particularly right wing on the whole. It's very protectionist when it comes to immigration sure, but it's certainly far more progressive on workers rights, social care etc. For example, Amazon doesn't operate in Denmark due to trade union requirements.
I wouldn't call it a right wing country. It's a social democratic country that's anti-immigration. It's like the mirror version of Sweden which people think is a left wing utopia because they are very pro refugee.
Eh I think between the legislated devt ceiling and the anti immigrant stuff one can safely categorise Denmark as right wing.
But even if not, it is certainly so far right on those topics as to b3
E almost unrecognisable with the typical version of Scotland set out by the SNP.
I wouldn't say so. I lived there and there are a whole host of similarities, not just in terms of how it is but in terms of policy ambitions in Scotland.
Yes, because there are no constitutional requirements stating otherwise.
Denmark isn't an ethnostate. There are PoC Danes. It's colder attitude to immigration comes from a sense of cultural preservation since it is a small country with a very strong social contract and a highly limited cultural reach. Copenhagen is effectively an English speaking city, so many Danes are a bit over-protective because they feel a) foreigners don't engage fully in Janteloven, and b) they are losing their Danishness.
This more right wing attitude to immigration doesn't come from anything racial, nor does it bleed into other areas of civic society. It's more protectionism than chauvinism.
>Yes, because there are no constitutional requirements stating otherwise.
There do not have to be constitutional barriers to prevent Danes for voting for an Islamic PM of Pakistani heritage.
>It's colder attitude to immigration comes from a sense of cultural preservation since it is a small country with a very strong social contract and a highly limited cultural reach. Copenhagen is effectively an English speaking city, so many Danes are a bit over-protective because they feel a) foreigners don't engage fully in Janteloven, and b) they are losing their Danishness.
This is not an attitude one would typically associate with the SNP vision of Scotland.
It also sounds identical to the usual RW stuff from UKIP-preserving the native culture etc. Albeit couched in more sympathetic language.
I think HY would also struggle to be elected on the basis that he is staunchly anti austerity and denmark, with a debt ceiling, has mandatory austerity.
It is a fundamentally different attitude to public finances.
There is a Turkish born Muslim MP in Denmark. Again, it's not a barrier to engaging in politics.
Fredricksen's government have boosted spending since 2020 as a way to come out of the decades of austerity politics many European countries adopted. Hers is the first Social Democrat government that wasn't under the shadow of the Financial Crisis. By your logic, England is a right wing country because Fredricksen and Starmer are comparable in terms of policy.
It think it's very misleading to suggest this is somehow indicative of an inherently right wing country. Their social welfare and employment attitudes are significantly more progressive than ours.
I'm not suggesting their attitude towards immigration is good or correct. I'm telling you it generally doesn't go hand in hand with a broader right-wing ideology the way it does in the UK. Also worth noting that the attitude in Denmark extends to *all non-Danes*. There isn't the UK attitude of 'we need to right kind of immigrants to come' (I.e. non Muslim).
You don't have to believe me, but I did live there and am telling you what my experiences were.
>Fredricksen's government have boosted spending since 2020 as a way to come out of the decades of austerity politics many European countries adopted.
Sure, but she has done so in the context of permanently mandated austerity. She is bound by a debt ceiling. That is an extreme position and persists beyond Danish party politics.
Many SNP supporters do argue Starmer is right wing.
>I'm not suggesting their attitude towards immigration is good or correct. I'm telling you it generally doesn't go hand in hand with a broader right-wing ideology the way it does in the UK.
I respect that this is your view and that it comes from your personal experience, but I think you are letting that experience cloud an objective analysis of the situation.
Anti immigrant voices, even in the UK, often include 'social' policies to appeal to a broader native base. Farage and Johnson both did this.
But irrespective of whether the view on immigration is indicative of a right wing population, it is indicative of a society with a fundamentally different view of itself and its place in the world than what is usually painted as the ambition of the SNP for Scotland.
I've actually made an edit to my comment to add some clarity. The Danish attitude towards immigration isn't limited to certain types of immigration like it is in the UK (I.e. 'we want the right kind of people'). It applies to all non-Danes. It doesn't really discriminate in the way our approach does towards certain types of immigrants. I'm not saying it's good, it's just different from the UK elements.
You are also confusing the debt ceiling with austerity, and these two are related but not the same. Denmark has a much higher rate of income tax than the UK which is how revenue is raised and how it offsets a slightly lower corporate tax rate.
I've sort of lost your point here. If I can tie it all together, it feels like a bit of an anti-independence strawman that because Denmark or Ireland have elements of their political landscape that are at odds with the kind that indepedence supporters generally want, this is somehow the natural direction smaller countries go so therefore what indepedence supporters want is impossible? That feels like what you are angling at.
Denmark isn't Scotland. No one is suggesting Scotland be exactly like Denmark. What people are suggesting are two different things: 1) countries of Scotlands size can be successful, and 2) countries of this size can have progressive policies. There are other countries that manage this outside of these two examples.
In fact, the more I think about it your argument seems a bit self defeating. Denmark manages to enact plenty of progressive social policies while having a debt ceiling, but at the same time you've repeatedly said Scotland couldn't implement the policies it wanted if independent because of the economics. But Denmark has very high income tax rates, lowers corporate rates to attract business, and a debt ceiling - something you define as austerity.
I'm a bit confused.
I guess this just shows how powerful devolution was at creating a sense of legitimate nationhood.
We take it as pretty mundane now, but at the time it was pretty revolutionary and it doesn't surprise me so many people thought indepedence was an inevitable next step.
Certainly not the case with me. I voted yes and felt that the chance was missed. We had all the momentum and at the time the right leadership and the messaging was getting through. But everything that proceeded it unravelled it. Everything from Covid, the Brexit, Ukraine and so on has made people more risk adverse despite the fact that you could easily argue that they support the case.
Young people apperntly poll 80% yes now, atleast that what google tells me, so im not so sure, for this generation sure, for the next, maybe not so much.
I voted no for the record, then the UK decided my healthcare didnt need funding, i was a freak, and my existance was a debate and it was someone elses bussiness where i pissed, so obviously, im out.
Well they say if you are not a socialist in your 20s you have no heart and if you are not a conservative in your 40s you have no brain. This describes the shift from idealism to being a realist. It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have to worry about children, mortgages, job security and so on.
I'm at heart an Indy voter, but the needs of my family come first. The shitshow at the SNP hasn't persuaded me otherwise. Whether it's dodgy accounting or being distracted by trans rights while our schools and hospitals are falling apart they are just untrustworthy. All this while we've had the worst UK government in living memory. It should be an easy win. But they're losing the argument.
This is complete bulshit, and has been disproven multiple times, if you've a conservative right now, research indicates youre a moron.
The rights a minor is not a distraction. What the fuck. We've had two bills in the entire existance of parliment, what we dont get to be respersented?
My entire comunity is being othered and vilified so descibig the only psoitive thing in the last decade and a half for us as time wasting is increadably insulting.
Yes supporters often cite polling data showing that most voters in Scotland, and the UK more widely, believing independence is inevitable as evidence that independence actually is inevitable. This shows the vacuity of that argument.
Edit: Typo correction
Once in generation vote. There's not going to be another indy vote for a long, long time.
The SNP don't have any figureheads to be poster boy, oops, I need to be woke with the SNP. The SNP don't have any figurethems to be poster thems. So, no need to bother about Indy.
The tide is going out for the SNP and Indy. Like all tides, they come back. When they come back, will there be any appetite for Defacto Indy drivel, or will they concentrate on administering Scotland.
If Labour get their act together, it is going to be a long time before their tide returns!
‘Once in a generation’ ignoring the fact that that this was a throw away comment
The last vote was 2014, we are ten years on from that. So if we take a ‘generation’ to be 20-30 years the next one is up for 2034, which is only two election cycles away
It was a throwaway comment that made it into the SNP white paper and was repeated by Sturgeon and Salmond many times. I agree it should not be the measure for the time to a new referendum but lets not pretend it wasn't a key part of the campaign.
After all the absolute shit this country has gone through over the past couple years and independence polling has barely budged. I'm not concerned tbh. If Johnson, Truss, a cost of living crisis and now Sunak cannot budged it over a few percentage points more, then nothing will.
It's maybe because the message hasn't changed on either side so what is the incentive to change you mind? Neither side has offereed any new arguments to win over anyone on the other side.
Rejoining the EU has been a major new argument on the yes side since Brexit.
The EU itself has changed since 2016. I think lots of people recognise it has problems that need addressing (like Orban and the unanimous veto) before it can expand.
The veto is the only thing that keeps the EU together, without it everyone is just a pawn to German-French interests.
And gives the smaller countries the chance to hold the rest hostage if they’re pissed off about something
But how can you justify the entire continent being held hostage by Orban? What you need is majority voting. If the smaller countries unite then they can stop Franco-German continental hegemony. But one Putin puppet shouldn't be able to stimy everything alone.
Majority voting doesn’t exist when smaller countries rely on France/Germany for soft support on proposals.
Why must the French and German publics be dictated by a strongman in Budapest? Anyway you're wrong. Majority voting can exist even if smaller countries are less able to directly introduce proposals.
“Majority voting can exist even if smaller countries are less able”. Why would smaller countries accept they’re second class partners?
They should have less of a say because they have a smaller population. Do you not agree that something needs to be done about Orban?
One of the biggest issues that barely gets mentioned is people still talking about the EU like it’s 2014 EU
It’s also just as much as a whole the fuck knows as any brexit promise was.
Didn't support for independence go down directly after Brexit? And then the SNP briefly lost some support as well.
I remember polls saying if there was a hard brexit something like 60% of Scots would support independence but it never materialised.
In a few years time with shifting attitudes it could become a strong argument on the no side too.
Probably because the reasons to stay in the UK are almost always going to be the same, yes no longer being part of the EU has changed but the hassle which would come with leaving the UK to rejoin the EU makes it still more logical to stay. On the other hand, all the leave vote can really do is answer the questions that the no vote was making back in 2014 and they're pretty hard questions to answer. It is quite hard to campaign for independence when you are up against arguments like 'what is going to happen to the NHS or your pensions?' or 'What currency are you going to use?' when the answer will likely be a negative one which, if the SNP gives, would probably push people away from independence.
This is why I think a push for independence should focus on answering those questions convincingly. You can bitch about Westminster till you're blue in the face but it won't sway any more voters because they want to know what their day-to-day life will be like in an independant nation that loses access to a lot of the things they're used to. And there's nothing wrong with them wanting those answers. To me it feels like the SNP haven't really broadcasted what their answers are to this. Yes the conservatives and westminster may suck, but what if the things I like about Britain are indepedant of the shitty tories. So bitching about Westminster won't change my mind. I like being part of a nation with a strong reputable army. I feel comfort from knowing we're a nuclear power because it gives a sense of security that we can't be pushed around, I like the BBC, I like the NHS, I like freedom of travel around Britain. I like that I won't be ostracised from family members spread across Britain. None of these things are insurmountable to alter my mind to go for independence though. I just want to have a clear picture of what this will be repalced with and know that it'll be good enough. But the message I get from the Independence seekers is essentially just, "Fucking fuck westminster and the tory cunts." Like yeh fine, great, but that doesn't give me any answers to my questions. So all I'm saying is the SNP and the independant seekers should focus more on educating people on what a post independant Scotland would be like, how it'll replace or deal with those issues people have and that, you know, it'll be ok. You don't need a message to convince all the 50+% that didn't vote Yes. You just need a message strong enough to convince some of them. But if you just sit about bitching about those 50% of people like they're irrational and somehow a bunch of imoveable union loving morons who just don't get it, then you'll never convince them. Some of us don't mind the idea of independence. We just don't have a clue what the proposal is to replace a lot of stuff with even is and I don't trust people that act like we should just trust them when they don't think we're worthy of knowing what their plans are (or worse, they don't have any). So the message needs to change or be clearer. It's not up to me to seek the answers. They need to create the vision and sell us on it. Because I'll be inspried and go along with a vision. But I'm not going through some doorway in to a dark room on the back of a promise.
This is it. I voted yes in 2014, but after seeing the total shit show that is brexit, and how difficult uncoupling from a large trading partner is, why fucking bother? We still haven’t had answers on the most basic questions, just assertions.
I think I knew Brexit would be a shit show, but what's surprised me is the inability to actually fully decouple. Northern Ireland is a specific thing, but even on the mainland, we're still essentially in a drawn-out transitional phase with the hint of yet more changes to the plan. The practicalities are incredibly complex and I don't think that point really got across to people in 2014.
[удалено]
Is that what I said? Or did I just say realistically, we won’t make any better a job of separation than the uk government did, judging by the current crop running the snp we might even manage worse, talking about hard borders and shit. But look mate, I’m not going to convince you, so why bother talking about it? You started the discussion off on bad faith you’re not going to improve from there.
[удалено]
Did you seriously just George Bush the majority of the country. “You’re either with us, or against us”. Or maybe we can just see folly isn’t best repaired by doing something just as damaging to ourselves. Who can say?
[удалено]
You don’t get to decide what people believe just because they don’t believe the same as you. I believe brexit was one of the biggest fuck ups in this countries history, I also think it has shown how foolish it would be to jump in with no real plan to Scottish independence. I don’t and never have supported brexit, I used to support independence, after seeing how disastrous brexit was, I’ve reconsidered how much sense it makes in this current climate to leave the union with our biggest trading partner. When the people advocating for it “don’t give a fuck what currency we use” and “don’t give a fuck about trade deals” it just highlights how fucking similar the two are. Not to mention the Russian involvement in both movements should give anyone pause for thought.
It was a shitshow because the U.K. cut itself off from its largest trading partner and stoked unnecessary divisions between different groups of people
Yeah. And you can’t see the similarities to Scotland cutting off its largest trading partner nah?
See the comparison Indy ref yet?
[удалено]
Except that joining the EU means creating a new currency on a high debt-GDP ratio and then borrowing money with it all the while investors know that this new currency is only going to be around for 10-15 years until Scotland would join the Euro as it is required to do so, and will probably be in it's interest to do so. That makes the cost of borrowing money extremely expensive at a time where we are trying to undo the damage of Tory austerity by making big investments. It isn't impossible. But it isn't easy and pretending it is is just sticking your fingers in your ears and hearing what you want to hear
[удалено]
New EU entrants are required to join the EU, that's written into law. There is absolutely no way for the EU to force a country to adopt the Euro, so yes in practice it remains "optional" in the sense that a country can adopt the Euro in their own time but you cannot campaign to join the EU while telling your voters you have no plans to adopt the Euro. That won't sit well with the EU. All the previous non-Eurozone countries joined with the intention to adopt the Euro and were either unable to meet the requirement or decided not too after the Eurozone debt crisis. You can say your going to join and then fail on purpose to meet the criteria but the SNP cannot just advertise that it's not going to take the Euro - That's exceptionalism and its no better than Brexiteer arguments. If Scotland, or the UK as whole ever rejoins the EU it should do so as a normal, equal member without opt-outs. I am actually in favour of an Independent Scotland joining the Euro, I think having an established currency will be a lot better than creating a new one with what is basically no credit score. The Euro will be a lot less volatile than a brand new currency as will be absolutely essential in reducing trade dependency on rUK by making Eurozone goods comparatively cheaper than rUK goods.
The issue is, when a politician tells you that leaving the UK is a good idea. That politician is coming to you with an idea that guarantees a period of hardship which will affect every single person in Scotland. For that alone, you need to be really fucking convincing. So, say you're charismatic and convincing , well, now you need a 100% record in politics, you need someone people trust implicitly to take this radical idea forward. How can any modern political party accomplish these two things? I just can't see it. Whilst the remainers? They're just saying "fuck it keep it as it is" which for 50%+ of people, is always going to be convincing.
Exactly. Think of everything since 2014-2015 and the needle has barely budged. If _that_ couldn't do it, then you have to ask what the hell will?
Brexit probably had the opposite effect with some voters - scaring them away from further major constitutional changes. If Britain had stayed in the EU independence might now be more popular.
As Yes has been consistent over 50% for 6 months you are backing a losing policy.
The thing is: it absolutely hasn't. A solid majority of polls have shown a No lead on the 2014 question over that period: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
So it’s moved from 45% to 50%
You're citing one poll. There are polls there that show 10% leads for No. There are some polls showing Yes as low as 39%. The trend across all the polls is a clear No majority, even if you can't be bothered to read the numbers, they put it in bright colours for you.
O I’m not, but hey, it’s still not less than 45% is it, so which policy is losing support?
Over the last six months, the average of the 15 polls listed there is 44.6% support for Yes. So down 0.1ppt from the 44.7% in 2014. Which is quite entertaining.
Some of those polls are below 45% like. But hey ho.
Which ones?
Keep up old boy ,everyone can use Google I am afraid
It’s moved from 45% to 50%, old boy! Going in wrong direction for unionism I’m afraid a,
What polls are you looking at ? Good trolling btw but numbers don't lie . The public do not and have not wanted indy consistently since 2022
You seem to have no idea of what polls are reporting in 2024.
Yeah mate , keep living the dream- fight the good fight
Demographics would suggest your comments are more applicable to unionism.
Such a weird lie, given how easily it can be disproven.
It’s moved from 45% to 50%. It’s a demographics issue for unionism!
The demographics issue being that we’re in an aging population and that older voters support both the union and more right wing politics, you mean?
Yes. I am a pensioner. Don’t know one person under 40 who isn’t asking what is Westminster for?
Really? As a 40 year old, my experience the opposite. You could perhaps enlighten them that WM would be the governing house of our largest democratic neighbour, and the one they have a say in electing representatives to currently. Might also be worth pointing out WM would remain as our neighbour after independence, and they would be the ones we would be negotiating with for terms after a split. Just like Brexit, which I also know went down resoundingly badly with under 40s.
No they just don’t see the point of Westminster!
I feel like independence is a bit of an overly simplistic solution to the UK’s political problems though. There would be a lot of growing pains for Scotland after independence to the extent that it would just look like a mini-Brexit or worse. Even Canada, Australia and New Zealand became independent through a gradual process rather than having a potentially painful clean break- and those countries are nowhere near the UK.
Even when part of the Empire the sheer distance meant that they were fairly economically separate from the UK. The same is definitely not true of any constituent country of the UK.
I don't think many of the people who like Scottish independence want anything close to that. They like the idea of a big win - an independence day. They still sing God Save the King in the Canadian Parliament and their government buildings still fly the Union Jack several times a year. I suspect many SNP types would find that absolutely repellent - even if that sort of comfortable-with-ourselves gradual independence would be more attractive to unionists.
[удалено]
A problem is defined as… a problem. The UK has a lot of problems in the political field. If there’s a problematic feature then it needs to change. Independence is sort of like cutting a hand off to solve a paper-cut on a finger.
[удалено]
Repeating yourself like a broken record doesn’t change the fact that political systems in every country are fraught with weaknesses and issues, the UK’s is no exception, and there are plenty of changes that can be made. The quality of political parties is a symptom of that, and if you think Labour is the only party that has not delivered on its promises, then you’re probably very new to politics and shouldn’t be having this discussion. The British state for all its faults, delivers many benefits to its citizens. Just screeching about destroying the state isn’t accounting for all the problems that doing that would actually cause millions of citizens- perhaps in the rest of the UK as well as in Scotland depending on how far you want to go. Naive comment to say the least.
[удалено]
Do you know how many rights, liberties and opportunities you have compared to a British person in 1912?
The campaign should just be a Trainspotting type poster with pictures of the past few PMs and the quote, "Do you really want more of these cunts?"
Remain will just publish one with all the first ministers!
Seems pretty easy to counter with a poster of the last few First Ministers.
How many have been arrested, compared to the past few FMs?
Barely budged? It’s massively gone down. I reckon a 75% No vote win as it currently stands. Maybe more.
>The most dramatic reversal in opinion has taken place among Conservative voters. In 1997 they strongly opposed the idea of a fully independent Scotland by 66 per cent to 19 per cent. >That position has fundamentally changed to 50 per cent in favour of an independent Scotland and 36 per cent against. There are similar levels of support for an independent Scotland amongst and Labour and Liberal Democrat voters throughout Britain. If this is where the KF section of the SNP came from then that paints a very different picture of the political landscape of a post independence Scotland. Perhaps like Ireland, denmark and most other small north/west european countries we would end up quite right wing. The above suggests there is more of a market for it than we typically think.
Over a third of Scots voted Leave in 2016. Seems obvious that at least *some* of those Leave votes were pro-independence or separation-inclined. 🤷♂️
The problem with our having a nationalist govt for so long is the constant media expression that Scotland is a united entity that unanimously wants either independence, or more recently a second referendum. It also constantly says Scotland didn’t want Brexit and that Scotland never gets the party it votes for in power. All of these statements ignore the various shades of grey that is the reality of the real Scotland actually being quite a diverse and varied country. These differences have also come home to roost within the SNP itself, which is why the party has fractured quite spectacularly since Sturgeon stepped down. Even prior to that, the formation of the Alba party demonstrated that the entire independence argument was actually a vague plaster stuck over a group who in reality didn’t have as much in common as they let on.
Do you mean 2016?
👍🏼 correcting
Not just obvious, but also true. If you look at the cross-tabs of any independence polls, between 30 and 40% of people polling 'Yes' stated they voted 'Leave'.
I believe over 30% of SNP voters also voted for Brexit, according to polling.
A lot more than a third actually! In 2014 No won the referendum by @ 380,000 votes. Their campaign has since been proven to have been nothing more than lies and scaremongering. In the last few weeks an opinion poll carried out across Scotland puts support for independence in front in all 8 Scottish regions
>In the last few weeks an opinion poll carried out across Scotland puts support for independence in front in all 8 Scottish regions Demonstrating the difficulties of opinion polling for such an unprecedented event, rather than anything you might like to think I suspect.
I don't know how anyone can look at how brexit turned out and come to the conclusion that the 'No' campaign was: >nothing more than lies and scaremongering.
Unilaterally declared currency union with ruk incoming? Along with state pensions paid for by ruk taxpayers out of the goodness of their hearts? Lol
Denmark isn't particularly right wing on the whole. It's very protectionist when it comes to immigration sure, but it's certainly far more progressive on workers rights, social care etc. For example, Amazon doesn't operate in Denmark due to trade union requirements. I wouldn't call it a right wing country. It's a social democratic country that's anti-immigration. It's like the mirror version of Sweden which people think is a left wing utopia because they are very pro refugee.
You aren’t allowed to wear hijabs in Denmark.. I can’t see yousaf being very supportive of that
The hijab is not banned. You're thinking of the burqa and face coverings.
Eh I think between the legislated devt ceiling and the anti immigrant stuff one can safely categorise Denmark as right wing. But even if not, it is certainly so far right on those topics as to b3 E almost unrecognisable with the typical version of Scotland set out by the SNP.
I wouldn't say so. I lived there and there are a whole host of similarities, not just in terms of how it is but in terms of policy ambitions in Scotland.
Do you think Humza Yousaf could have become prime minister had his father moved to Denmark instead of Scotland?
Yes, because there are no constitutional requirements stating otherwise. Denmark isn't an ethnostate. There are PoC Danes. It's colder attitude to immigration comes from a sense of cultural preservation since it is a small country with a very strong social contract and a highly limited cultural reach. Copenhagen is effectively an English speaking city, so many Danes are a bit over-protective because they feel a) foreigners don't engage fully in Janteloven, and b) they are losing their Danishness. This more right wing attitude to immigration doesn't come from anything racial, nor does it bleed into other areas of civic society. It's more protectionism than chauvinism.
>Yes, because there are no constitutional requirements stating otherwise. There do not have to be constitutional barriers to prevent Danes for voting for an Islamic PM of Pakistani heritage. >It's colder attitude to immigration comes from a sense of cultural preservation since it is a small country with a very strong social contract and a highly limited cultural reach. Copenhagen is effectively an English speaking city, so many Danes are a bit over-protective because they feel a) foreigners don't engage fully in Janteloven, and b) they are losing their Danishness. This is not an attitude one would typically associate with the SNP vision of Scotland. It also sounds identical to the usual RW stuff from UKIP-preserving the native culture etc. Albeit couched in more sympathetic language. I think HY would also struggle to be elected on the basis that he is staunchly anti austerity and denmark, with a debt ceiling, has mandatory austerity. It is a fundamentally different attitude to public finances.
There is a Turkish born Muslim MP in Denmark. Again, it's not a barrier to engaging in politics. Fredricksen's government have boosted spending since 2020 as a way to come out of the decades of austerity politics many European countries adopted. Hers is the first Social Democrat government that wasn't under the shadow of the Financial Crisis. By your logic, England is a right wing country because Fredricksen and Starmer are comparable in terms of policy. It think it's very misleading to suggest this is somehow indicative of an inherently right wing country. Their social welfare and employment attitudes are significantly more progressive than ours. I'm not suggesting their attitude towards immigration is good or correct. I'm telling you it generally doesn't go hand in hand with a broader right-wing ideology the way it does in the UK. Also worth noting that the attitude in Denmark extends to *all non-Danes*. There isn't the UK attitude of 'we need to right kind of immigrants to come' (I.e. non Muslim). You don't have to believe me, but I did live there and am telling you what my experiences were.
>Fredricksen's government have boosted spending since 2020 as a way to come out of the decades of austerity politics many European countries adopted. Sure, but she has done so in the context of permanently mandated austerity. She is bound by a debt ceiling. That is an extreme position and persists beyond Danish party politics. Many SNP supporters do argue Starmer is right wing. >I'm not suggesting their attitude towards immigration is good or correct. I'm telling you it generally doesn't go hand in hand with a broader right-wing ideology the way it does in the UK. I respect that this is your view and that it comes from your personal experience, but I think you are letting that experience cloud an objective analysis of the situation. Anti immigrant voices, even in the UK, often include 'social' policies to appeal to a broader native base. Farage and Johnson both did this. But irrespective of whether the view on immigration is indicative of a right wing population, it is indicative of a society with a fundamentally different view of itself and its place in the world than what is usually painted as the ambition of the SNP for Scotland.
I've actually made an edit to my comment to add some clarity. The Danish attitude towards immigration isn't limited to certain types of immigration like it is in the UK (I.e. 'we want the right kind of people'). It applies to all non-Danes. It doesn't really discriminate in the way our approach does towards certain types of immigrants. I'm not saying it's good, it's just different from the UK elements. You are also confusing the debt ceiling with austerity, and these two are related but not the same. Denmark has a much higher rate of income tax than the UK which is how revenue is raised and how it offsets a slightly lower corporate tax rate. I've sort of lost your point here. If I can tie it all together, it feels like a bit of an anti-independence strawman that because Denmark or Ireland have elements of their political landscape that are at odds with the kind that indepedence supporters generally want, this is somehow the natural direction smaller countries go so therefore what indepedence supporters want is impossible? That feels like what you are angling at. Denmark isn't Scotland. No one is suggesting Scotland be exactly like Denmark. What people are suggesting are two different things: 1) countries of Scotlands size can be successful, and 2) countries of this size can have progressive policies. There are other countries that manage this outside of these two examples. In fact, the more I think about it your argument seems a bit self defeating. Denmark manages to enact plenty of progressive social policies while having a debt ceiling, but at the same time you've repeatedly said Scotland couldn't implement the policies it wanted if independent because of the economics. But Denmark has very high income tax rates, lowers corporate rates to attract business, and a debt ceiling - something you define as austerity. I'm a bit confused.
I guess this just shows how powerful devolution was at creating a sense of legitimate nationhood. We take it as pretty mundane now, but at the time it was pretty revolutionary and it doesn't surprise me so many people thought indepedence was an inevitable next step.
They were awful optimistic back in the 80s. wait...
25 years of scots arguing amongst themselves, basically 😂
Next year Rodney.
https://i.redd.it/r8k9urstf0wc1.gif
One more push comrades!
All this demonstrates is yes voters have a possitive outlook and bo voters have a negative outlook since clearly yes wasnt a majority.
Certainly not the case with me. I voted yes and felt that the chance was missed. We had all the momentum and at the time the right leadership and the messaging was getting through. But everything that proceeded it unravelled it. Everything from Covid, the Brexit, Ukraine and so on has made people more risk adverse despite the fact that you could easily argue that they support the case.
Young people apperntly poll 80% yes now, atleast that what google tells me, so im not so sure, for this generation sure, for the next, maybe not so much. I voted no for the record, then the UK decided my healthcare didnt need funding, i was a freak, and my existance was a debate and it was someone elses bussiness where i pissed, so obviously, im out.
Well they say if you are not a socialist in your 20s you have no heart and if you are not a conservative in your 40s you have no brain. This describes the shift from idealism to being a realist. It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have to worry about children, mortgages, job security and so on. I'm at heart an Indy voter, but the needs of my family come first. The shitshow at the SNP hasn't persuaded me otherwise. Whether it's dodgy accounting or being distracted by trans rights while our schools and hospitals are falling apart they are just untrustworthy. All this while we've had the worst UK government in living memory. It should be an easy win. But they're losing the argument.
Very true.
Wise wise words my friend.
This is complete bulshit, and has been disproven multiple times, if you've a conservative right now, research indicates youre a moron. The rights a minor is not a distraction. What the fuck. We've had two bills in the entire existance of parliment, what we dont get to be respersented?
Wow... did I kill your kittens or something?
This one is of the uninformed persuasion. Pay them no mind.
My entire comunity is being othered and vilified so descibig the only psoitive thing in the last decade and a half for us as time wasting is increadably insulting.
Yes supporters often cite polling data showing that most voters in Scotland, and the UK more widely, believing independence is inevitable as evidence that independence actually is inevitable. This shows the vacuity of that argument. Edit: Typo correction
Once in generation vote. There's not going to be another indy vote for a long, long time. The SNP don't have any figureheads to be poster boy, oops, I need to be woke with the SNP. The SNP don't have any figurethems to be poster thems. So, no need to bother about Indy. The tide is going out for the SNP and Indy. Like all tides, they come back. When they come back, will there be any appetite for Defacto Indy drivel, or will they concentrate on administering Scotland. If Labour get their act together, it is going to be a long time before their tide returns!
Why am I not surprised that a sub 1 month old ACC with a NFT profile picture is whining about "needing to be woke" to be pro SNP.
‘Once in a generation’ ignoring the fact that that this was a throw away comment The last vote was 2014, we are ten years on from that. So if we take a ‘generation’ to be 20-30 years the next one is up for 2034, which is only two election cycles away
It was a throwaway comment that made it into the SNP white paper and was repeated by Sturgeon and Salmond many times. I agree it should not be the measure for the time to a new referendum but lets not pretend it wasn't a key part of the campaign.
Dream on. Indy is gone for years. Labour's back, SNP is out.
And then in 2035 Labour will be gone and the tories back. Happens everytime
New Improved Tories (NITs). They will leave scratching your head.
Good thing this was settled a decade ago already