Scotland is Not Northern Ireland
Scotland needs a different constitutional path out of the Union than that laid out for Northern Ireland, and a different one from that proposed by Stephen Noon and Kezia Dugdale with the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Glasgow argues Gordon Guthrie.
John Taylor checked himself out of the hospital where he was being treated for 5 bullets to the head.
Ted Heath, the Conservative & Unionist Prime Minister had told his party colleague Stormont PM Brian Faulkner that Westminster was going to take control of justice and policing. Faulkner said his government would resign and force an election.
Heath had hoped to avoid that, but he asked for 24 hours grace. And in that day whisked the Temporary Provisions (Northern Ireland) Bill through parliament. John Taylor was not going to miss his last cabinet meeting before Stormont fell.
Enter Scotland
The Temporary Provisions (NI) Act has only 3 sections and one of them is its name. The first section gives the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland all the powers of both the Stormont Parliament and the Governor General.
The 2nd clause is the hero of this story. It transfers the power to merge NI with the Republic to the people of Northern Ireland.
It ends up in the Good Friday Agreement and thence to Stephen Noon and Kezia Dugdale’s recent paper on taking the referendum out of Scottish Politics.
This is the provision in law in Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:
2 Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
3 The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule.
This isn’t going to work for Scotland.
How did we get here?
Lets go back to 1913. Northern Protestants had rejected the idea of Irish Home Rule (within the Empire) and army officers had mutinied at Curragh. A 9 county Ulster opt-out, a 6, a 4 and a 2 and a bit had all been floated.
The Home Rulers lost and there were 2 identical parliaments, the 26 Southern Counties and the 6 Northern. If the Northern Parliament wanted a United Ireland it could simply vote for it.
This was the power singled out at prorogation, but why?
11 days earlier, as the crisis deepens, Ted Heath gets a letter from his foreign secretary, the former PM Alec Douglas-Hume, saying:
I really dislike Direct Rule for Northern Ireland because I do not believe that they are like the Scots or the Welsh and doubt if they ever will be. The real British interest would I think be served best by pushing them towards a United Ireland rather than tying them closer to the United Kingdom.
Unionists had a legitimate fear that the British would sell them out. Members of the Conservative and Unionist Party in NI had a legitimate fear their party colleagues in power at Westminster would do the deed.
The British government had concerns too: would the police remain loyal? Or the civil service? even the Post Office Giro Bank staff? (No Giro Bank, no wages for a lot of people.)
The Unionist veto was born, and a referendum to support it was announced.
The Border Poll of March 73 voted 98.9% in favour of the Union. The Nationalists didn’t give a monkey’s and boycotted. It changed nothing.
So the Unionists wanted the border poll in the GFA – the Republicans didn’t care.
For them, what mattered was continuity with the 2nd Dáil elections of 1921—in British terms, the Westminster election of that year. They regard that as the basis of their legitimacy and long-held claim to be the legitimate government of all Ireland. They needed an all-Ireland referendum—which they got—simultaneous votes north and south on the GFA.
So in NI the border poll is to prevent British politicians that the Unionists don’t trust from doing something the Unionists don’t want to happen.
In Scotland the situation is different. Yes voters want a border poll and don’t trust the Secretary of State to give them one – with good reason.
It is inconceivable that William Hague, Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Dominic Raab, Liz Truss, James Cleverly, David Cameron or David Lammy (as Foreign Secretary) could have written about Scotland to David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer (as PM) in the way that Douglas-Home did to Ted Heath.
So stalemate on the Irish gambit. Or is it?
The Reverse Irish
The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 contains the seeds of a reverse Irish gambit.
In June 1973 NI voted 2 to 1 for power sharing and after constitutional wrangling the Power Sharing Executive arrived on 1st January 1974.
Then the disastrous February 1974 election happens. Anti-power sharing candidates win 51% of the vote, but under Westminster’s crazy top-up system take 92% of the seats and start organising an armed general strike. Members of the Conservative and Unionist Party, splinter parties, trade unionists and paramilitary gunmen paralyse Northern Ireland for 2 weeks in May.
If a handful of protestant members of the Power Sharing Government could be peeled off, the Executive would not be cross-community. 14 days into the insurrection Merlyn Rees did what he didn’t want to do and shuttered the Power Sharing Assembly, like the law said.
A Scottish Border poll
No voters want to break Scottish politics out of a discussion about process for a new referendum and back to policy.
Yes voters want a reassurance that Westminster politicians won’t cheat like in 1979 or say No, as they currently do.
This can all be done by an amendment to the Scotland Act.
The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body should have the power to propose 5 commissioners to assess if the settled will of the Scottish People is for independence. They would have the staff and the money to make that assessment.
The Scottish Parliament representing the sovereign people should ratify (or not) those commissioners en bloc.
The Secretary of State should be obliged in law to call the referendum if a majority of the commissioners advise him to do so.
Scotland is not Northern Ireland – but it is at least half Irish. The largest party at Stormont doesn’t recognise either house of parliament at Westminster. The largest party at Holyrood only recognises the lower house – the unelected, the appointed, the English bishops and the soon-to-go hereditaries are unacceptable.
The last 10 years have seen every attempt to create a constitutional road to independence stymied. In a world where anti-constitutionalism is on the rise, and former and would-be Tory leaders are openly supporting American insurrectionism, is better for all that that is rectified.
An excellent piece.
Interesting piece. For full transparency, there should be some agreed criteria by which the settled will of the Scottish people is assessed.
A referendum, perchance? Almost then definitive way of getting a result.
The UK constitution relies a lot on historical precedent and the precedent for an independence referendum is a Holyrood government (voted in under PR) with a majority voting for holding a referendum requesting to hold one. The break in precedent is Westminster government rejecting this request in 2020 as opposed to 2011. This method is the most democratic one as it is directly tied to votes cast and it effectively means that a referendum can only be held once every 5 years. If the electorate of Scotland do not want another independence referendum in next 5 years they will vote for parties opposed to it. The only additional stipulation I would add to a Hollywood parliamentary majority is that there should also be a majority of votes for parties supporting an independence referendum.
I fully understand why the author and others are looking for alternative methods to tie Westminster to commit to an independence referendum. The reason they are having to do this is undemocratic Westminster intransigence and I fear this will be the stumbling block to any alternatives suggested. You only have to listen to how Labour politicians refuse to engage with any discussion on the subject of an independence referendum to understand this.
Agreed.
I don’t disagree with much of what you write. However, I think that there are good reasons to look at other options. First, because the process should be one both sides – pro indy as well as pro union – can sign up to. Second, to decouple the issue of independence from the issue of short-term party-political governance of Scotland, and thus enable new political alliances to be built, both for government (between parties) and more broadly (for independence), especially on the centre-left. Third, to factor in the ‘settled will’ issue, which I think is important for the ultimate success of the independence project. And finally, for the more tactical reason of testing the commitment of supporters of the Union to basic democratic principles.
I think that all of these would actually help build a broad social movement for independence, not tied to any party or parties, and to foster a multiplicity of visions for independence that could gain more traction than the unidimensional one we had in 2014.
I strongly agree.
Gordon Guthrie’s suggestion is one of a number which have appeared over recent years, offering various solutions to what they see as a problem, which can be summed up in the statement from Mr Guthrie’s final paragraph, that the last 10 years have seen every attempt to create a constitutional road to independence stymied.
But I cannot see the foundation for that statement, and I don’t believe it, except possibly as a complaint against the SNP for having frustrated any real progress in the independence cause, though how deliberately is open to question.
Many, perhaps most, campaigners for independence blame the Union for inaction, but all that London has done is declined to consent to a Holyrood indyref. That amounts to no more than maintaining the actual status of Holyrood under its founding act, as a devolved, subsidiary body with no authority to legislate on matters “relating” to “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England”. Reliance on Holyrood is a bit of a phantom, because even if a Holyrood indyref could be brought about and could be won, the actual step of independence would require London’s cooperation anyway.
It would only be correct to blame London if no other route was open. But Scotland does have an alternative, and always has. There is within Scotland an existing body with the legal, constitutional and political power to take Scotland out of the Union by their own fiat, if mandated to do so by a direct democratic majority vote of the people of Scotland, and London holds no legal or constitutional power to prevent it. That body is the Scottish MPs, the modern and democratic equivalent of the old Scottish parliament which gave our independence away more than three centuries ago.
The vote itself would come in the form of a general election, easily turned into an independence plebiscite by a party standing throughout Scotland and issuing the appropriate, and extremely simple, manifesto, seeking a head-count majority and undertaking to have Scotland leave the Union.
London’s very rare statements have always been that the Union is one of consent, and Scotland can go if it chooses. That is not a gift. It is no more than an acknowledgment of the actual position. London would simply have no script if it even wanted to argue the contrary. What could they say – that they’re binding Scotland to the Union out of their own whim? And could England not leave? Come off it.
So Mr Guthrie is trying to solve an imaginary problem, whereas what the independence movement has to do is get the SNP, or others, to shake themselves out of their decade-long illusion (glaringly exemplified in the utter fiasco of their recent electoral performance), and take the right course – a true plebiscitary election, and independence if successful. Simple, for God’s sake!
Hi Alan,
I too wouldn’t agree that every attempt has been stymied as there has only been one attempt ever made: repeatedly asking for a s.30 authorisation. It’s important that this is recognised because this is the source of the festering frustration within the Indy camp, not the refusal to supply one.
No party can promise to provide something at consecutive elections and simply walk back from it every time. Which is what happened, time and time again. The whole plan was simply to ask the same question and hope for a different answer. Honesty alone should have dictated that those pursuing such an approach were up front with Indy’s core support about it, but didn’t (save for Angus Brendan MacNeil who let the cat out the bag that the Westminster Group had been formally told it was tosh). Political theatre only works when it isn’t repeatedly exposed as pantomime.
Too much time has been wasted on playing the Westminster game when what should have been happening was exploiting an advantage: inventing grandiose “shadow” titles for MPs sent to do one job; childish manoeuvres to determine whether Ken Clarke or Jeremy Corbyn should be the caretaker when Theresa May lost a confidence (instead of exploiting the Brexit vote and her lack of both majority and authority); championing a General Election that Scotland could never win which heralded in the Boris majority; standing for a speakership role in the commons etc. And that’s just down there.
ScotGov pursued aims on social engineering the majority just weren’t ready for, failed to keep up with its core promises which are important to the people of Scotland (dualling the A9, recycling bottle schemes and the ferry fiasco etc.) and squandered the hard-won reputation for competence and care that allowed it to move from a minority administration in 2007 to a majority governments shortly thereafter.
Too much blame is attributed to others. Too much focus about “difficult times” is now thrown as a smoke-screen to deflect from the basic truth. Polls were/are ignored and being slaughtered at a General Election just as the Labour Party was once before (whose grave was merrily danced on by the people who’d bought the idea of their own invincibility) is not so much dismissed as pretended it never happened. It is the land of the Emperor’s new clothes.
Independence isn’t something that’s going to be given., it’s going to have to be taken. And for that to happen those claiming to speak for the movement are going to have to take risks, both personal and political. If they can’t they need to move aside. How to start… stop blaming others and refocus!
We need policy, sound policy on complex and uncomfortable areas (immigration, which the rise of then right is now going to bring to the fore and can’t be avoided; supposed Independence in Europe, because we allowed ourselves to be dragged out when we said we wouldn’t and a Plan B is now required because – just like a s.30 is fully dependent on somebody else – we can’t guarantee getting in and both it at currency sunk the IndyRef to a large extent). And ScotGov needs to dump vanity projects and student politics and govern like it’s permanently in a minority administration – addressing the needs of the majority of the people and, if social change is needed or desired, winning an argument for it rather than saying “I believe this, I have the power, anyone who disagrees is X, Y, Z…”.
Seems to be a lot of sense in the above two posts.
We desperately need politicians that are willing to take risks. What on earth are they feart of? They all had day jobs before becoming politicians, they can go back to the day job if they F up.
I’ve never understood the way some people cling desperately to whatever job they have at a particular time. Walking away from a comfortable job towards a new beginning of your own making is a fantastic feeling. If you believe in independence you must also believe in your own personal power and agency.
Hi Augustin, I agree with much of what you say, but I have questions…
“ScotGov pursued aims on social engineering the majority just weren’t ready for” – what do you mean?
“Independence isn’t something that’s going to be given., it’s going to have to be taken. And for that to happen those claiming to speak for the movement are going to have to take risks, both personal and political.” Agreed, but wonder what you mean?
“We need policy, sound policy on complex and uncomfortable areas (immigration, which the rise of then right is now going to bring to the fore and can’t be avoided” – sounds like a right-wing talking point, what do you mean?
“ScotGov needs to dump vanity projects and student politics and govern like it’s permanently in a minority administration” – again, interested in what you mean?
Thanks
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for getting back to me and more than happy to explore.
With regards to social engineering I’m pretty sure most folk will have known that the gender recognition issue was on my mind. Personally, I’m probably like most in that I’m relaxed about some aspects and more concerned about others – predominantly the split between adults and children. I accept others have concerns about protected spaces etc. (and Lady Haldane’s ruling probably has given them some justification), but even so still I’m happy for it to be looked at. My point was more in how ScotGov engaged and progressed the point. When equal marriage was proposed the public were pretty much onside already and it was pushing at an open door. This issue, however, came from left-side and a very dogmatic approach was taken (I’ll horribly paraphrase Shirely-Anne Sommerville here with the second consultation and say she basically said it didn’t matter what the public though it was getting shoved through). That’s not how you take people with you. It’s certainly not how the public should be treated by a governing party except in extremis.
As for taking risks… I’m not a withdraw from Westminster character. I think that would harm the movement and the other side would simply pass legislation saying we refused to participate. I had a pop at the “shadow” nonsense and I suppose that’s where I’d start first. We need to send people who are willing to withdraw from the trappings of the place – so let’s dump the state dinners at the palace (whether the MP concernd is a royalist or not, the scramble for tickets for the coronation, the attending the speakers Hogmany fireworks on the terrace, standing for the speakers offices etc. We need to get out the Erskine and make them uncomfortable. We need to stop playing politics and start playing the game – there are bills (some very worthy) that require no dissent expressed before they can move on – we dissent to everything. If they won’t recognise our democratic right…. And we start fights for what we should have by right. I’ve just checked Stephen Gethins’ parliamentary questions. I rate him very much personally and he’s asking a lot of probing and worthy about Darfur etc. But as Scotland’s only real foreign affairs spokesman I’d be expecting more Scottish focussed activity – like asking why ScotGov can’t have a UK dispensation for Erasmus students to be exercised withing Holyrood (within Westminster’s gift) – which if refused is then a fighting point and something tangible the public can understand. That sort of thing.
As for policy development, proper policy development is neither right wing nor left wing and it’s not the maturest approach ever to consider it in such terms. Bluntly put, it’s done to cover your a*se and for no other reason! I used immigration as an example, so I’ll stick with it here. It’s a good topic because people have passionate views on the matter.
Current SNP immigration policy doesn’t exist – it simply says Scotland needs a relaxation of immigration and Westminster policy is “bad”. A bit like here with you, instead of engaging it throws immediately stones at anyone who even suggests bringing this uncomfortable topic up. That’s not only cowardice, it then actually creates a political vacuum which characters like Farage can then come in and exploit frustrations over.
Some of our most liberal European neighbours are closing their borders, suspending Shengen, talking about offshoring failed applicants (just as the UK proposed with Rwanda). Is Scotland really going to be the only country with an open-door policy, an anything goes and absolutely everyone is welcome? Are we really not going to differentiate between economic-migrancy and asylum in any way? Won’t we seek to expel people we’ve provided safe-harbour to who go on to commit serious crime (as Canada and Australia do to us)? Are there no concerns about social cohesion and managed integration given the current experiences elsewhere in Europe? I haven’t proffered a personal position here, but I do find it ridiculous we don’t have a sound plan for a country seeking Independence and/or a rebuttal for our opponents – and then try to stop it being talked about. There are no sacred cows in this game. Politics has turned on this subject (badly, in my opinion) and this is going to be a live issue.
And in closing, the dumping of vanity projects. This is about priorities. If you say that you are going to dual the A9 by 2025, you do it. If you run a roads equivalent tariff system because you recognise the challenges of living in an island community you make sure that they have a functioning ferry service. If you complain the council tax is damaging to the poorest in society… you change it. If you demand welfare powers you don’t decline to take them when offered. And if that means free travel for under 21s then has to take a back seat for a bit, it takes a back seat. The difficult stuff comes first, that’s all. That’s what the public will thank us for and remember.
“My point was more in how ScotGov engaged and progressed the point. When equal marriage was proposed the public were pretty much onside already and it was pushing at an open door. This issue, however, came from left-side”.
I don’t agree with that Augustin. The Tories and their press allies played a blinder on this and it still irks me how easily Scots were suckered by it. When the SNP first started to look seriously at the subject they were being accused of dragging their feet by LGBTQ+ groups because Theresa May and the Tories were already planning to introduce a bill. In fact in 2021 the Tory MOJ stood up in court and effectively argued the likes of Isla Blair should be sent to a woman’s prison for “mental and physical health” reasons (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57692993). The only major difference between May’s reforms and the Scottish govt’s was the latter’s lowering the age to 16.
After the Scottish govt started discussing Scottish reforms, May was ousted by Johnson and the Telegraph decided the subject would make a great addition to the Tory smokescreen portfolio. The clown prince and his Tories dutifully U-turned and took up the cudgel and, with the aid of the gutter press, made it a toxic subject. Prior to that, polls in Scotland showed a majority in favour of the Scottish govt’s planned reforms. That wasn’t long in sinking following the press barrage on the subject. The Tories sat through 18 months of debate on the subject without even hinting they’d stop the reforms (just as they later did with the bottle deposit return scheme) and then, at the last moment, stepped in with their section 35 to ‘save the Scottish people from the big bad SNP/Greens’. It wasn’t until a week after our colonial governor introduced his section 35 that the gov.uk website declared the Tory govt’s intention to prevent trans people being imprisoned in a prison consistent with their chosen gender.
Whatever anyone’s opinion is on the subject it pisses me off how easily many of the people who supported the reforms, or were at least cool with them, including independence supporters, gave the Tory press the response they were looking for. FFS, the Family Party and the “Sturgeon Out” union jack wavers outside Holyrood were riding the crest of a wave. It all fitted in so sweetly with the Very British Coup over the “missing” £600K that received a hundred times the publicity the sum total of Tory corruption received. It was so easy for them that I fear to this day independence is doomed.
Take a look at https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsscotland/tories-could-ramp-up-heavy-handed-power-grab-in-scotland-ahead-of-next-election/ar-AA1joVx5.
[A scathing new report has found that the UK Government attempted to block Holyrood legislation such as gender laws simply for political reasons and experts now warn there could be more to come.
“There are grounds for believing that this intervention was motivated by party political gain without regard for constitutional sensitivities as suggested by the failure of the UK government to seek a political resolution before deploying Section 35.”]
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the response. You don’t have “reply” button so I’m talking to myself as a way of engaging with you.
I’m not a big fan of overly politicising social policy. The 1967 Act that partially decriminalised homosexuality was brought in by a Labour Government – the same Government that deliberately didn’t extend it to Scotland because it feared an electoral backlash from what was considered (and may still be, who knows) a socially conservative country. As a consequence it remained essentially illegal in Scotland for gay men to exist, never mind do anything. That is until 1980, when a Thatcher government redressed the balance – when she knew it could then be palatable to the public.
So… twenty-or-so years later when ScotGov introduced the Equal Marriage Bill it was pushing at an open door – the public had digested progress, heard the concerns and t didn’t carry much weight. Yes some Tories, Brain Souter, and various aspects of the press etc. got all het-up, but this a democracy and that happens. The aternative is a dire prospect. But even with this there was no groundswell of public concern and that’s the difference with gender recognition – people were taken along with the idea and had tome to become comfortable with it.
With gender reform ScotGov ran a process of it’s all the pie or nothing at all. There wasn’t a debate, there was a “stairheid rammy”. There was no attempt to find a middle ground. Its approach didn’t just alienate people, it castigated large sections of them – sometime publicly. And when the political proverbial hit the fan, who was left holding the baby? The other parties all shuffled off and it became a ScotGov disaster in many of the public’s eyes. And it’s ScotGov’s fault for allowing it to play out that way, there was no need.
Political success requires confidence, and it’s starting to look very much like that has been lost – and the polling had been in that direction for some time before the General Election. In a standard political party that’s ok, ebbs and flows happen and you’ll eventually get back into power, but that’s not (or shouldn’t be) the current governing party at Holyrood’s purpose. That is and should always be directed towards gaining Independence – which can’t be achieved if the public aren’t taken with along with it.
Only sound policy and concentrating on the day-job is going to get us over the line here. There’s too much blaming others for things, all sorts of things, and it isn’t helpful. Change the things you can and simply learn to live with the rest. As I said in my opening gambit, nobody is going to give us Indy, it’s something we’re going to have to take..
I don’t disagree with that Augustine but I still think the entire narrative was dictated by the gutter Tory press,.
And as for the Theresa May years at Westminster….
Cameron left and she was on the ropes after her GE debacle – devoid of internal support in her own party. There was blood in the water and Scotland had been handed a golden ticket in 2016. We did nothing with it. Worse the public were told we wouldn’t be dragged out and then, with a shrug, we were – all whilst parliamentary games were played (and are still being played because we’re mug-enough the play the game by their rules).
By way of example:
If memory serves me every single SNP MP voted to give Northern Ireland a better Brexit deal than their own country was getting, voted to give our one business a commercial disadvantage. Why? Because the Westminster rules say it’s Ulster and you just don’t rock the boa, it’s just not the done thing. Well, for me, when your own people are going to suffer you don’t just start rocking the boat, you start laying in about your opposition with it’s oars. As I said, it’ll have to be taken.
Excellent series of posts Augustin.
Regarding the SNP you say this:
‘Political success requires confidence, and it’s starting to look very much like that has been lost – and the polling had been in that direction for some time before the General Election. In a standard political party that’s ok, ebbs and flows happen and you’ll eventually get back into power, but that’s not (or shouldn’t be) the current governing party at Holyrood’s purpose. That is and should always be directed towards gaining Independence – which can’t be achieved if the public aren’t taken with along with it.’
The problem here is, is that the SNP will always be in a bind as both a party of government dealing with all the usual issues of any governing party whilst at the same time having an essentially sole purpose of gaining independence.
If this had been a short-lived situation with independence gained, the uneasy balance between governing and independence could have been maintained, but as time wears on these two become incompatible, or at least they have become so in the hands of the SNP.
How do they show themselves to be a competent government (which they must do in order to be take seriously about independence) *within the Union*, whilst at the same time seeking every avenue to leave that union? At the same time if they had made a success of things in governance terms, then arguably that could lessen the argument for leaving. Make a mess of it (what has actually happened) and people think, I don’t trust you on independence either.
I sometimes think this limbo world is actually what they want as it means they can carry on dangling the carrot of freedom whilst at the same time blame everyone but themselves (and especially Westminster) for political failure and incompetence. Of course this has all unravelled now, as it inevitably would as the limbo-land is impossible to maintain forever.
Underlying and forming the foundation all of this is a split electorate on independence.
I realise this offers no solutions, but I have come to the conclusion that the SNP cannot deliver independence or competent government.
Hi Niemand,
Thanks for the input.
There are of course always going to be tensions when the party of government is also the party of change (Indy), but that conflict shouldn’t be insurmountable. I would argue risk only arises when that party then starts to lose focus on the main aim and follows projects that either don’t help the core task or, worse, damage it. Which unfortunately seem to be the case.
I have no issue with the Greens being green-focussed first and Indy after, that’s their priority decision and they should be respected for it. And the SNP (and others) equally have the right to be respected within the Indy family if it were to adopt the opposite tack. Concentrating on issues that matter to the majority when in Government, pursuing policies focussed to help us gain Independence, and leaving aspects that are overly divisive for post Indy campaigning is neither bad planning nor bad policy.
Those of a certain vintage will remember when SNP Party Policy was to gain Indy, serve one full term to enshrine and protect Indy, and then shut up shop! In doing so it was a relatively broad-church organisation: Red Clydesider-types rubbing along (not always very happily) with blue-rinse Tories as it were. Both groups confident they could always go and plough their own political field after the goal was achieved and setting aside personal political aims/projects in order to achieve it. I’m not sure that it’s ever going to be achievable again in the current political climate, but that principle should be salvageable.
HR26 will in all probability be defining for the SNP. Does it go both votes SNP (again) or accept that it now only part of the solution and seek to build coalitions and attempt to get an Indy super majority with the second vote? Because in truth that’s possibly the only way of moving the dial left now. Westminster can ignore many things, but it can’t ignore public opinion and certainly not the international press. If I was a betting man? My money would be on it going for both votes again and saying that to do anything else wouldn’t just be bad form but gaming the vote. All in the childlike innocence of one not realising that it was it (and Indy) being played for fools again.
I of course appreciate my view(s) might well ruffle feathers, but if not this then what’s the alternative plan?
Hi Augustin, You say: “I have no issue with the Greens being green-focussed first and Indy after, that’s their priority decision and they should be respected for it. And the SNP (and others) equally have the right to be respected within the Indy family if it were to adopt the opposite tack.”
What’s the ‘opposite tack’ to being green focused? What does that look like?
I’m intrigued by your notions of ‘majority’ and ‘overly divisive’ here: “Concentrating on issues that matter to the majority when in Government, pursuing policies focussed to help us gain Independence, and leaving aspects that are overly divisive for post Indy campaigning is neither bad planning nor bad policy.”
Do you realise how subjective that is?
I think you play down those tensions too much.
It is rare that a party can have a sole aim (independence) whilst at the same time govern a country within a union of countries it wants that independence from *for any great length of time*. What has happened since 2014 is a study in what goes wrong in such a scenario.
With hindsight one the worst things that happened was the electorate giving the SNP such a mandate post 2014. It was like voters said we don’t want indy but we will keep voting for a party that does because ‘they speak best for Scotland’ (possibly also read – we can keep the old grievances going forever and still be in the Union, the plucky SNP heading up the empty BS for all of time who never really take responsibility for anything much).
It was the recipe for what has followed – the SNP became hungry for power regardless and started to really bed in to the whole UK system with all the perks that brings. A little later the SNP actually said vote for us even if you don’t want indy as we speak for all of you (and it worked). Then, as you say, the politics of the party firmed up and morphed into one containing some quite extreme social ‘progressiveness’ but used the indy carrot to get the votes to railroad some of those not very popular policies through. This is why so many now feel really betrayed by the party. Latterly they changed that stance back to vote for us *for* independence due to that discontent but it was too late, empty, idiotic.
It is childish politics all round and it is no wonder there is now such a mess.
What to do? Well at the risk of being even more unpopular than you, what is to be done is to retreat and regroup. The longer the SNP stay in power, the further away indy will get.
Hi Augustin
“As for policy development, proper policy development is neither right wing nor left wing and it’s not the maturest approach ever to consider it in such terms” – I mean your own diatribe about immigration rejects your own theory here. I think you are living in your own bubble, a highly intelligent right-wing bubble but a bubble nevertheless.
You seem utterly convinced that your own views just happen to be the sensible common sense majority. Its quite fun really.
Hi Editor,
Politics and political discourse requires a certain degree of confidence, but I wouldn’t say mine was exceptional in any way. That’s not to say that I’m right, but it’s the only route to progressing an argument. And it certainly hasn’t reduced me to insults at those whose views I might disagree with.
As for me being right wing, now that will give others who know me a good chuckle. Though possibly not as much as “highly intelligent”.
As for bubble-dwelling …? It may be a bit of a stretch to try and attach that particular mantle to the party trying to increase policy positions and debate. I’m not the one seeking to close down difficult discussion here, after all, but each to their own.
How’s that particular approach working out for you currently with the electorate anyway?
A.
I’m not closing down ‘difficult discussions’ – I think you mean you have some very ‘non right wing’ views on immigration you want to share?
You ask “How’s that particular approach working out for you currently with the electorate anyway?” – I’m not sure who you are talking to or referring to?
And hi again Editor.
To answer your two questions:
My “Green” point is simply that I have no objection to their parry putting green issues before the pursuit of independence, not that green issues are “bad” per se. They’re not. Personally, I’d love to see Scotland GM free, organic farming only, Scandinavian building standards with regards to insulation and a baked0-in recycling society. But I’m an Independence first and let’s sort out the rest later nationalist. There’s no argument for you to start here.
As for majority issues, I suspect that speaks for itself. I listed some of them earlier… dualling the A9, ferries, council tax, welfare etc. but you could add others such as national care service and educational standards. Again it’s simply policies that affect everyone – well everyone with a car who travels, that values our island infrastructure, wants fairer local taxation, ingrained help for an increasingly older population with the social and health challenges that brings, and making sure that the next generation are best place to take themselves and an Independent Scotland forward. That type of everyone, but I’m sure you get the drift. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
As for politics being subjective…. ain’t that the truth!
Hi Editor,
Happy to help.
Just as with most of my politics my views on immigration are relatively relaxed, too.
Fan of freedom of movement as a participating member of the EU, accept we have a demographic problem that can probably only be addressed with immigration in the short to medium term, and believe that people who do come here to live permanently should be accepted as Scots (if they wish to be). What I’m not is stupid enough to pretend that migration doesn’t need to managed, that there haven’t been issues elsewhere we would be well minded to take note from, that an absence of detailed policy is sustainable, that refusing to discuss difficult issues doesn’t then create a vacuum more extreme elements then exploit, or that good governance doesn’t sometimes require difficult decisions.
As for how’s your approach to Independence working? It’s clear you don’t agree with me on, well probably very much at all, which is absolutely fine, but you have to at least be able to arguefor the status quo. Answers for why there no Independence strategy and the failings since 2016. Suggest how we can get out of the current situation. Any schmuck can throw childish insults about (I’ll live), but the Editor of a political blog really should have a better A-game than that, no?
I’m not arguing for the status quo. I was just asking you some questions.
I do agree with some of what you say and can lay out a response in due course, or you can read something like 2500 articles here: https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/contributor/mike-small/
I’m not shy! : )
To Normand’s last comment about 2015 election. I profoundly disagree with what you say about SNP vote in 2015 GE. You are implying that people who voted No in 2014 voted for SNO in 2015. This is nonsense and if you can find me such a voter I will be very surprised. The SNP vote surged in 2015 on the back of the Yes vote in 2014 and Yes voters disgust with Labour working with Tories during 2014 referendum.
Well, we don’t know, though they got 50% of the vote, 5% more than voted for independence. What we do know is the SNP openly courted the no voters later on, Sturgeon saying quite clearly that a vote for us is will not be taken as a vote indicating support for independence (I think this was at the 2017 GE). As fas a can be determined this didn’t actually work as their vote percentage went down in 2017 but shows very mixed up thinking at best
My overall point is that, in hindsight, the dominance of the SNP after 2014 has done nothing for the independence cause. Some people are still clinging to the idea that somehow the SNP will come good, with talk merely of past ‘mistakes’. Beyond the point that is highly euphemistic, the SNP even now are offering no sense they can change. You say below they ‘need to reflect, reform and work far more closely with broader independence movement and wider’. But this is not happening at all. Maybe a real wipe-out in 2026 might actually make this happen – I see it as the only way it could which is what I am getting at overall.
Norman’s – 1.6 million voted for independence and only 1.4 million voted SNP in 2015 GE and membership of SNP soared after 2014 referendum. Virtually every political analyst acknowledges the increase in SNP vote was down to Yes voters being energised to vote after referendum. In short we do know and you are wrong.
The rest of your post is equally nonsensical- as I have said below, regardless of your opinion of SNP performance, and I am critical of several aspects the people who would benefit and be celebrating most an SNP wipeout that you seem to support would be Labour and Tories. If this happens they will claim, not without some justification, that the independence issue was finished and they would settle into ensuring Holyrood was more subservient to Westminster. The SNP may in all probability struggle to retain power post 2026 but a strong independence representation is still essential or independence cause will be set back many years.
Who would you recommend voting for in 2026 to advance cause for independence which you claim to support?
Hi Augustin
trying to find the space to respond to your several contributions. There’s a lot positive in what you say, but some I’m still confused by. Excuse my stupidity, lets try and clarify?
In the beginning you write: “I’m not a big fan of overly politicising social policy. The 1967 Act that partially decriminalised homosexuality was brought in by a Labour Government – the same Government that deliberately didn’t extend it to Scotland because it feared an electoral backlash from what was considered (and may still be, who knows) a socially conservative country. As a consequence it remained essentially illegal in Scotland for gay men to exist, never mind do anything. That is until 1980, when a Thatcher government redressed the balance – when she knew it could then be palatable to the public.
So… twenty-or-so years later when ScotGov introduced the Equal Marriage Bill it was pushing at an open door – the public had digested progress, heard the concerns and t didn’t carry much weight.”
So, this raises some questions. First of all what does to “politicise social policy” mean I this context? Presumably it means, from the way you’ve framed it, that no social policy should be introduced until ‘conservative Scotland’ has had a few decades to get its head around it. I mean, this is great if your part of that group, but not so great if your gay in Scotland and have to wait twenty years longer than your southern cousins? Why would we want to be that country? Why would the views of some mythical conservative Scotland be able to dictate this? It seems unclear, just that this is a given good.
You write: “But even with this there was no groundswell of public concern and that’s the difference with gender recognition – people were taken along with the idea and to become comfortable with it.”
This suggests that political leaders should just wait around for some vague society, some vague ‘norm’ to catch up and ‘be okay’ with changes. What about hanging? What about smoking? What about seat belts? What about smacking children?
There are a whole number of things where this vague notion of mainstream Scottish society, which you champion, would just have lagged behind for years if someone didn’t ‘politicise social policy’ – whatever that means.
Secondly, you write: “In a standard political party that’s ok, ebbs and flows happen and you’ll eventually get back into power, but that’s not (or shouldn’t be) the current governing party at Holyrood’s purpose. That is and should always be directed towards gaining Independence”
– then you write: “Only sound policy and concentrating on the day-job is going to get us over the line here and “As I said in my opening gambit, nobody is going to give us Indy, it’s something we’re going to have to take.”
The actual details from you of what and how the independence “we’re going to have to take” looks remarkably thin on the ground.
And there seems to be a disconnect between the governing party “always be directed towards gaining Independence” and your further line that its all about sensible governance, gaining confidence, not upsetting anyone.
Of course it could be both, – proving competence and fighting for independence – and maybe that’s what you mean?
I’ll try and respond to each of your comments today.
Thanks
John – why do you keep calling me Norman? Is that some kind if silly insult? If so, wow, bravo!
I see no point in responding further.
Niemand – it is my predictive text (just changed phone). No insult intended I can assure you.
Apologies
John
There is a lot of wishful thinking within sections of independence movement.
Even if Westminster had agreed to hold an independence referendum I really doubt that Yes would have won as the issues that led to 2014 majority No vote have not been addressed.
The focus of independence movement should be on building support for independence especially amongst those voters currently resistant to independence who are neither British nationalists nor enamoured by Westminster. If support can be raised to >60% over a Holyrood and General Election Westminster resistance to another referendum will crumble and a subsequent referendum will be won. All polling indicates that the Scottish electorate see a referendum as the established and democratic way to achieve independence.
The evidence shows that competent governance at Holyrood that benefits the majority of electorate is best way to persuade electorate of benefits of independence. Support for SNP has mirrored support for independence since 2014 until last two years when SNP support has fallen for a variety of reasons which have been repeated ad nauseam but support for independence has so far held up.
It looks increasingly likely SNP will lose power post 2026 Holyrood election and this will be a setback for independence cause. To somehow promote this outcome as a positive for independence is naive in extreme as unionist parties will celebrate it as the demise of independence cause. If you wish for an outcome that your opponents will celebrate I would question your judgement and support for independence.
There is every chance that a SNP defeat in 2026 will lead to more infighting and the younger generation being turned off the idea. In addition it is highly likely any ‘unionist’ Holyrood government will use their power to make Holyrood subservient to Westminster and road to independence more difficult.
This is not to say that the SNP have not made errors over last few years, need to reflect, reform and work far more closely with broader independence movement and wider. They may well have to do this from opposition but please be careful what you wish for.
Hi John,
Quick question, if that’s ok?
I’m all for robust debate and challenge but like you I too think the infighting within the movement has to be pulled back, on all sides. Everyone has a bit of soul-searching and compromising to do to get things back on track.
What would your position be to an HR26 Indy supermajority – basically SNP on the constituency vote and a shared Indy grouping on the list?
And I’m not suggesting your answer would be a “no” here, but if it was can I also ask i) why that would be and ii) how you’d then address the equally robust challenge from the other side that the SNP were more interested in winning elections for private advantage than doing anything that’s politically necessary to get Independence?
A.
A – thanks for your reply.
To achieve independence it is essential to maximise the number of votes for and seats won by parties supporting independence.
In a first past the post system this essentially means supporting the independence representative with best chance of winning.
With the list vote it depends on how many constituency seats a party is liable to win eg in 2021 the SNP were polling well in constituency seats so it was more beneficial to support another independence supporting party on list. In 2026 with SNP polling significantly lower a different approach might be required?
If support for independence gets above 60% a supermajority is on the cards and assuming that one party would need to win heavily in constituencies then a vote for another independence supporting party on list would maximise representation. I would hope that in such a situation the various independence supporting parties could work together to achieve a supermajority.
Hi again John,
I’m afraid (to me at least) that sounds more like an SNP strategy for harvesting votes rather than Independence. It wouldn’t share the list votes when it was riding high on the wave and now it won’t consider it either when it’s in a bit of a trough.
I’m not sure how we can say the Westminster is likely to listen to 60% of public opinion either – they didn’t listen to an SNP majority of MPs politically slaughtered all opposition in their path at all. So why this? I’m also not sure why we as nationalist would ever want to buy into such a plan either when it isn’t the accepted norm for any other electoral franchise. If we agree 60% public opinion return is required to hold another referendum (unlike Ulster, to tie in with then article here) why not do a Super-79 with knobs on and say 60% of the population need to vote yes for then result to be confirmed too. 2014 set a franchise the Unionists are desperate to change, there must be a reason for that and I don’t see why we should help them achieve it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the neverendum concept – or painting ourselves blue and shouting about arcane pice of early modern legislation the Dean of Faculty has addressed more eloquently than I ever could. I believe it is probably “once on a generation” now (something else that probably shouldn’t have been said!) or a significant change in circumstance – like 2016. That’s probably why it was so galling for so many to have watched that opportunity be thrown away.
For me, the answer has to be Holyrood and home advantage. Much to the Editor’s pleasure I might not be here to see out a generation, so I’m going to have to hang my hat on a change of circumstance as the more achievable route. After the 2014 result the longer we leave it the harder our Unionist colleagues are going to make it for us – they got that much of fright before.
A.
If you read closely what I wrote you would understand I recommended maximising independence votes. I personally voted SNP in constituency vote and Green on list vote to try and achieve this. I have fully explained my rationale for how I would decide to vote based purely on maximising the independence party’s votes. At present the SNP, are regarded by vast majority as the political party that represents independence movement therefore it is logical they are first choice on constituency vote.
I am not an SNP member or lifelong supporter but wish to see an independent Scotland. If another independence supporting political party was to become more popular then I would adjust my voting intentions as long as they were a social democratic party in line with where my personal and the majority of Scottish opinion lies. Alex Salmond had foresight to understand this and moved the SNP to be a mainstream political party in Scotland.
History shows that if Scottish public opinion expressed via the ballot box is strong enough Westminster resistance will fold.
Despite all the other fantasy solutions offered there is no shortcut to independence. It can only be achieved by convincing the majority of Scottish electorate it is in their own personal and society’s interest to be an independent country. I now consider independence is the best option for Scotland but even before I did I still considered myself a proud Scot. Convincing our fellow citizens of Scotland that independence is best option is where all the energies of independence movement should be concentrated rather than bickering amongst ourselves over personalities or process.
Hi John,
I think we’re probably almost on the same page. I’m no longer with the SNP myself (and not with anyone else before hysteria grips the Editor again) but still great friends with many who are. No big fallout, just a realisation that it’s just not the vehicle that can deliver what we want any more. I’m probably more guided towards an all-party with no-party dominant approach as we had with Scotland United back in the day, something where the cause was the glue that binds.
That said I’m absolutely certain that the SNP still has a big part to play, albeit as an equally important supporter of a wider Independence movement. To be basic about, it is no longer “the” party of Independence as it once claimed; which might be good for all concerned. I’m also certain that we in the Independence movement have to stop the internecine warfare. There’s no problem with criticism in politics, there’d be no pint of politics without it, but the base abuse and hatred simply serves the Unionist stance. It’s why I’d personally have no issue voting SNP again if it offers the correct franchise – but I’m no longer a vote simply to be harvested.
As I stated about the “once in a generation” remark I do have significant concerns about the 60% talk. I think it’s a trap of our own design. We have a franchise recently tried and tested and I’d need someone on the Nationalist side to explain to me why that’s no longer suitable and shouldn’t apply again – why 50%+1 isn’t appropriate in Scotland’s case when it is everywhere else, why we uniquely now have to show an excessively high level of public support fro something in a democracy etc.?
The 60% wasn’t embraced as a way to progress independence but to cover embarrassment in the SNP for its repeated failure to act and/or move the dial, and it’s been willingly embraced by the Unionist side for a reason. Why would we ever want to play there game (again)? I get that the commentariat are often promoters of this ‘siren’s song’, but there job is maintain interest and sell copy (which fighting, especially infighting does), not get Scotland back on the international stage. I don’t buy into the constant winging about MSN, but I do recognise they’re often friendly but never your friend if it’s a choice between supporting what right and a headline.
Dear Augustin, and John
no hysteria here and I too favour a ‘Scotland United approach, though I’m not sure if we mean the same thing and I am increasingly wary not just of particular party politics but of the effectiveness of parliamanentary politics.
I think the building of a mass movement that is pro independence but also has a much wider and deeper reach and remit is essential given the magnitude of the societal, ecological and global problems we face.
I never really understand when people argue for a ‘united indy’ approach or an ‘all indy party’ approach this makes sense when the other pro indy parties (other than the Greens) are consistently losing their deposits or polling 1 – 1.8% of the vote. Can anyone explain why including such parties would make any difference whatsoever?
The task remains to build an overwhelming majority for independence, and for that independence to have real meaning.
Would love to hear peoples thoughts.
A – thanks for reply.
Let me clarify- I personally consider a vote by the electorate of Scotland of 50%+ as a democratic mandate for independence.
The 60%+ figure is my thought on the level of support required to force Westminster to accept another referendum. This level of support would almost certainly give independence supporting parties a supermajority in Holyrood and clean sweep at a General Election. I doubt Westminster could resist another referendum at this point and even if they did there is a lot of pressure that could be brought to bear internally and externally to force their hand. In addition with this level of support Yes would win a clear majority in the subsequent referendum which would make the country more united and the negotiations with Westminster around independence settlement easier.
I hope this clarifies everything.
All the best.
Hi Editor,
I think you may have answered your own question here with regards to widening the representation of parties (in HR26, as I would have it): ‘The task remains to build an overwhelming majority for independence, and for that independence to have real meaning.’
Isn’t it easier to build an overwhelming majority when people feel they have an investment in the game.
Yes, the SNP and Greens, currently, meet the criteria required under the HR system to be represented with seats, but that can change. What if the Greens bring down the SNP budget? What about the votes wasted on SNP 1&2? Having a cross party strategy requires compromises, yes, but the rewards could be worth the effort: not least the confidence that could be created in actually seeing people/groups actually working together for a common goal.
Hi – I don’t really understand the maths. Can someone explain? You gain independence by allying yourselves with a tiny electoral sect capable of reaching only about 1% of the electorate. Because … ‘something something wasted votes’?
Editor – I don’t disagree with what you have written. The movement must try and further broaden reach beyond political parties into Scottish society to make it more relevant and relatable to the public. The political parties also need to listen more to the movement and be less top down and dictatorial in approach. The danger for wider independence cause is if its support becomes too closely related to support of a political party whose fortunes will almost inevitably wax and wane. At present support for independence does seem to be holding up despite downturn in support for SNP but I would argue that it independence has become less of an priority for many Yes supporters partly because the SNP are in doldrums.
The democratic route to achieving independence does however require strong political representation and under Holyrood voting system this can be achieved by either a single or multi party approach. Under current system the multiparty approach would only be effective in list voting where a smaller party has the level of support to achieve representation. In 2021 SNP won so many constituency seats that the threshold to win list seats became very high so that the smaller parties had a greater chance of winning seats. The level of support for smaller parties would have to be >5% for this to be feasible. (eg with Green Party in 2021). If SNP support in 2026 is similar to recent GE they will win less constituencies and therefore need less votes to win list seats so it may not be appropriate to vote for a smaller party in list vote to boost independence party representation in this case.
All of this is predicated on voting for an independence supporting party as a top priority which may not be the case for many independence supporters in 2026.
Hi Editor,
I’ll try again, then.
SNP 1&2 squandered a frightening amount of Independence supporting votes on the list. I appreciate Nicola Sturgeon recently mooted something about how she could understand if people felt the wanted to vote Green… , which then gave a bit of license, but essentially votes were wasted for no good reason (as SNP were electorally living high on the hog at that point – though no longer now, obviously).
Running this strategy and failing to move the dial with a feasible Independence strategy has created the impression of protectionism – that the SNP is more interested in pursuing power than Independence. I can understand that now the SNP in an electoral slump might find it difficult to reach out now when it has more to risk by doing so, but t has created this situation, nobody else.
Opening up the franchise to others as a means of maximising the return on the list vote isn’t a weakness, but a strength. Not least as it creates a broad church movement that exists not only in name – which would also allow the SNP to maintain a political presence after Indy. Why not have free run on the constituency and open the list?
And yes, some of the groups you are thinking of may have gotten 1% recently, but that analysis is only as good as the last result (and I remember when both the Scottish Socialists, Independents and the Pensioner Party all got representatives). What about the significant number of the electorate who don’t vote because they “don’t feel it’s worth it and, what difference will it make”? The political engagement level in 2014 from the public far outstrips anything that Holyrood or Westminster garners normally, so there appears to be a certain untapped potential for engagement out there.
As for the oft opined statements about “how would we know what these people are like?” and “what about their vetting?” from some quarters of the Nationalist establishment. I would simply draw peoples attention to some of the shenanigans that the first group if SNP MSPS became embroiled in during Hoylroods first term, and some of the behaviours associated those that followed I the terms after.
“Opening up the franchise to others” – I don’t think you mean the franchise.
Where I di agree with you is when you say “The political engagement level in 2014 from the public far outstrips anything that Holyrood or Westminster garners normally, so there appears to be a certain untapped potential for engagement out there.”
But this would be an argument for a different sort of politics, such as we saw in 2014, not voting for obscure shards of parties?
Hi Editor.
That sounds very much like SNP protectionism.
Those of us old enough remember the good-old, bad-old days might just bristle a bit when the same tired arguments about vote-share that were used a weapon against the SNP then. are now being rolled out against others by it today. Not dissimilar to the high-handed comments from some quarters about opponents not being Constituency MSPs – forgetting how much the party struggled at the first Holyrood term (when the majority of SNP representatives were on the list) to fight for equality there too.
So I guess I do mean franchise, really. A franchise where all parts of the movement work together (again, as in Scotland United) to achieve a goal. In this case Independence. Does that mean the SNP giving up control, of course it does, but it’s a trade off where it sets aside political ambition for it’s primary gaol – after that it can do as it wishes. The significant risk of not at least trying this path, of deliberately tying Independence to its own political fortunes, is that every time it falters (and it does falter) the end becomes that much harder to achieve. It doesn’t have all the answers, no party or individual does.
By way of example.
Mr Wilson’s white paper. Has anyone considered would have happened if we’d adopted it, become Independent using that model and then Liz Truss had crashed what would then have been the “English” economy, My sources at HQ tell me it’s the love that simply dare not speak its name anymore, but just don’t mention it to the great unwashed as there’s no Plan B. By opening up the franchise this problem, as with a few others, might just melt away. It’s not like others don’t have a plan – which may be equally problematic, but there’s just a chance that two wrongs might make a right with some tinkering.
Being sceptical of parties who hover around 1% is not being pro SNP, its just asking those who advocate them to back up their assertions. The franchise is those people who are eligible to vote – which are people resident over the age of 16. Anyone with this franchise can vote for anyone they want to.
Hi Editor,
I do believe you may be being deliberately obtuse now, no? Or at least I hope you are.
It’s absolutely clear that I’m talking about the political franchise of how the list system is utilised and could be better serving the Independence movement, not the electoral one whereby the determination of who can or cannot vote is determined.
Feel free to jump in and proffer some considered points or analysis yourself, assuming you have some that is. It’s allowed, but not compulsory.
Dear Augustin
thanks for your invitation to comment on my website, most kind. I don’t think your comments need any further
analysis from myself. I am left unconvinced that Alba or Colette Walkers ISP (who stood in the 2023 Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election and finished in ninth place with 0.68% of the vote) are of any electoral or political value – but if you or others do then best of luck to you!
PS Franchise, noun
a
(1): the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company’s goods or services in a particular territory
also : a business granted such a right or license
just opened a new fast-food franchise down the street
(2): the territory involved in such a right
b: a constitutional or statutory right or privilege – especially : the right to vote
Morning Editor,
I do take where you’re coming from, I just feel it rather short sighted and really protectionist in a party political sense. We’re either a movement or a party and I certainly hope for the former. Plus (especially given all party politics moves in cycles) there’s a horrible inevitability that popularity will eventually wain, and it’s a lot less embarrassing to have extended a hand to pull someone else up when you didn’t need to than it is to to be begging for a lift from those you’ve previously sniffed at later.
PS
1) A good journalist should always cite their sources.
2) ‘Especially’ (but not exclusively?). If only my proposal for the list wasn’t for others to be granted a license to market their (political) goods.
Who said language was dead? I never would have had you pegged for such a conservative soul, though. ;o)
A.
I have very serious concerns about the franchise as it was the
any adult living in Scotland may vote franchise which, according to some research lost us the 2014 referendum with over 70% of non-Scots voting NO. This, as far as I can see, was only mentioned briefly in one comment by Augustin, but I think it crucial that this is considered and agreed before this whole suggestion is agreed, if it ever is!
While many EU residents voted NO in 2014 (because they were told, untruthfully, that they would be sent home if Scotland voted YES, as we would have been out of the EU if Scotland had voted YES, since England would be regarded as the successor state) temporary residents, such as students, military and those on fixed term contracts, were included as well as a considerable number of English people who had settled in Scotland but their loyalty remained with England.
I suggest we need to look carefully at the franchise if there is to be a referendum after a judgement that Independence is the Settled Will of the Scottish people, as the process looks as if it will be run by the British Government, we need to look very carefully at how that would be conducted, as that governemt is not a neutral party.
I suggest we would need the help of International Observers to over see the fairness of the that and, preferably, to use the UN protocols on a referendum on decolonisation which suggest a residence qualification of around 10/20 years, along with an absolute ban on any interference by the coloniser state which might include bribery or threats (eg the Vow and Project Fear) and a ban on any media bias that might influence the result.
The earlier process of ascertaining the ‘Settled Will of the Scottish people’ would also have to comply with these restrictions in order that it itself would not be biased by non-Scots, though I have no suggestions as to how that might be achieved.
Ann
I have very serious concerns about your approach to the franchise.
If you live in a country, use public services and are liable to pay tax in the country you have a stake in the country. If you have a stake in the country you are surely entitled to a vote in the country.
I am aware of the fact that ethic Scots may have voted by a narrow majority in favour of independence in 2014. It is to SNP’s eternal credit that they have not raised this issue publicly to the best of my knowledge. I cannot imagine Nigel Farage would have been so reticent if similar circumstances has pertained to 2016 Brexit vote.
What you appear to be advocating is a more nativist approach which I would contend is not appropriate to the 21st century country and would also be potentially counterproductive as it could to turn off a significant number of potential independence supporters.