Independence Without A Referendum

[morag]

How democratic, though? Currently Labour get far more than 50% of Scottish Westminster seats on less than 50% of the vote; the SNP didn't receive a majority of votes in the last Holyrood election, but still got a majority of seats. Representative politics in all but the purest proportional systems tends to turn pluralities into majorities, in order to make government more effective - but a referendum is different. That's why they're used, for clarity of position on an important constitutional point.

A very good point. A majority of seats is not enough. It must be a majority of votes cast.

And why this is a very good idea - even if it doesn't win (this might not appeal to you thorbotnic):

In effect, every election (Holyrood or Westminster) becomes a referendum of sorts. Initially (and probably for some years perhaps) it would be a losing position.

However, even in defeat it has one MAJOR benefit. It keeps Westminster honest (or as honest as is possible for them). If they even think about shafting the Scots again - we always hold the threat of voting for Independence. Better Together right

We all know (and some of us will never forget) what Westminster did to Scotland after the previous failed referendum!

[runningtings]

Yes, exactly my concern.

I think we will alienate those NO voters who might be brought on side by a DevoMax platform if we go all out gung-ho, and potentially lose some YES voters who don't like this approach.

[Jie Bie]

Spot on, but can see quite a few saying thats a sell out.

If anyone says going for devo max is a sell-out they need to take another look at the referendum result.

For the time being our best bet is to fight for full autonomy within the UK. Longer term it will give us a better platform for a future vote.

Talk of UDI and holding another referendum on independence at this stage (before the parties down south have even had a chance to break "the vow") will just turn people away from voting SNP.

[ParisInAKilt]

The next election should be fought on the basis of the SNP negotiating for devo max within the UK.

I think that would be a vote winner for the SNP. If we get a decent number of MP's and the UK parliament refuses to play ball with them then the people of Scotland will be pissed, and vote SNP again in 2016.

At that point if Westminster still refuses home rule / devo max a fair number of the 55% will be regretting their choice of vote, and we might start to see calls for a re-run in 2020...

This.

The SNP are in potentially a great position. Sturgeon is right.

Let Westminster this up and pick up the pieces from there.

Scotland wants change. That's why there was a referendum. It narrowly lost. But the change craved by the majority in Scotland won't come and that's when we push for another referendum but need to accept that might be 10+ years away.

Interesting times ahead.

Edited September 22, 2014 by ParisInAKilt

[thorbotnic]

A very good point. A majority of seats is not enough. It must be a majority of votes cast.

And why this is a very good idea - even if it doesn't win (this might not appeal to you thorbotnic):

In effect, every election (Holyrood or Westminster) becomes a referendum of sorts. Initially (and probably for some years perhaps) it would be a losing position.

However, even in defeat it has one MAJOR benefit. It keeps Westminster honest (or as honest as is possible for them). If they even think about shafting the Scots again - we always hold the threat of voting for Independence. Better Together right

We all know (and some of us will never forget) what Westminster did to Scotland after the previous failed referendum!

Ah, yes - the Neverendum option. Hasn't done any favours for the PQ in Quebec - the voters hate the divisiveness and lack of clarity.

[EddardStark]

I have been pretty consistent on this. The best way to achieve independence prove that you can govern competently with increased powers. SNP have proved they deserve to be the party to take this forward. Hence keeping the loony left at bay is a must for Nicola Sturgeon

Edited September 22, 2014 by EddardStark

[runningtings]

Prove that 'you'?

You mean 'we', surely?

[ParisInAKilt]

The division goes away if Westminster delivers more powers to Scotland and governs in a way that the majority of people in Scotland are happy with. It was never independence for independence sake, it was about making Scotland a better country.

Problem is that when I listen to Westminster politicians I know the above won't happen.

[EvilScotsman]

I have been pretty consistent on this. The best way to achieve independence prove that you can govern competently with increased powers. SNP have proved they deserve to be the party to take this forward. Hence keeping the loony left at bay is a must for Nicola Sturgeon

What 'increased powers' are these?

And what's the 'looney left'?

[EvilScotsman]

Ah, yes - the Neverendum option. Hasn't done any favours for the PQ in Quebec - the voters hate the divisiveness and lack of clarity.

I don't believe that the two situations are remotely comparable.

[thorbotnic]

This.

The SNP are in potentially a great position. Sturgeon is right.

Let Westminster badger this up and pick up the pieces from there.

Scotland wants change. That's why there was a referendum. It narrowly lost. But the change craved by the majority in Scotland won't come and that's when we push for another referendum but need to accept that might be 10+ years away.

Interesting times ahead.

I think it would probably be better for the SNP to not win the next election - if they do so, they won't be able to call a new indy ref (practically speaking, as I doubt Westminster will agree to its validity so soon after the last one) and it will make it less likely (simply on the fact that parties in government tend to stagnate and lose momentum / popularity over time) that they'll win in 2020, when calling a new referendum would be more palatable. Winning in 2016 could be a poisoned chalice, like the tories winning in 1992 was for them, or the PQ winning in Quebec in 1998.

[AlfieMoon]

I think it would probably be better for the SNP to not win the next election - if they do so, they won't be able to call a new indy ref (practically speaking, as I doubt Westminster will agree to its validity so soon after the last one) and it will make it less likely (simply on the fact that parties in government tend to stagnate and lose momentum / popularity over time) that they'll win in 2020, when calling a new referendum would be more palatable. Winning in 2016 could be a poisoned chalice, like the tories winning in 1992 was for them, or the PQ winning in Quebec in 1998.

That may well be the case but at this moment in time I can't see how the SNP can possibly fail to win in 2016.

[runningtings]

Don't really see that logic thorbotnic, I think momentum alone will mean the SNP will win.

[FuNsTeR]

clearly if Scottish Labour has lost 30% + of it's voters to the Snp and other pro Indy parties due to Labour's actions during and after the referendum then that clearly means every Labour seat for Westminster is wide open to the Snp ... I believe Alex Salmond has said in the past that if The Snp got 1 more seat than half of the Scottish MPs then he would demand Independence ... or he could wait a couple of Years to the Euro referendum where we have a Snp (Scottish MPs) majority in Westminster and a Snp/Green alliance in Holyrood with the lion's share of seats and a situation where rUK votes to leave the EU and Scotland votes to remain in the EU causing a constitutional crisis ... the Snp/Green government would be well within it's right to remain in the EU and quit the UK

[ParisInAKilt]

I think it would probably be better for the SNP to not win the next election - if they do so, they won't be able to call a new indy ref (practically speaking, as I doubt Westminster will agree to its validity so soon after the last one) and it will make it less likely (simply on the fact that parties in government tend to stagnate and lose momentum / popularity over time) that they'll win in 2020, when calling a new referendum would be more palatable. Winning in 2016 could be a poisoned chalice, like the tories winning in 1992 was for them, or the PQ winning in Quebec in 1998.

This all depends on Westminster and their decisions in the coming years.

Labour politicians said that social justice and creating a better more equal society was better achieved by voting no.

As a yes supporter I believe that to be nonsense. If I'm wrong I'll accept that and independence will go away. But if not then the topic of independence won't go away because nearly half the country wanted it and likely will continue to want it if the above chances don't happen.

I want the SNP to win in 2016 because right now I wouldn't trust anyone else to govern Scotland.

[thorbotnic]

I don't believe that the two situations are remotely comparable

If the stated method of achieving independence changes from the very clear (a yes/no referendum) to the somewhat vague (a majority of Holyrood and / or Westminster seats and / or a majority of votes being cast for parties which have stated this (along with a number of other policies) in their manifestos) it creates an atmosphere of political uncertainty.

After their first referendum defeat, the PQ concentrated on being an effective government and making sure that the federal government delivered its promises made pre-referendum (which it didn't - brought most starkly into light by the goings on around the Meech Lake Accord). This was a very effective strategy, giving delivering the chance of a second referendum, which was crucially viewed as 'legitimate' by the Quebec people, just 15 years later. However, since the failure of the second referendum, the PQ have drifted towards the 'somewhat vague' option, refusing to state if and when a PQ government would call another referendum, and stating that it wouldn't be strictly necessary in any case. They've been out of power for almost all of the past decade, and were absolutely trounced in elections earlier this year. The policy is seen as mendacious.

[MacWalka]

If anyone says going for devo max is a sell-out they need to take another look at the referendum result.

For the time being our best bet is to fight for full autonomy within the UK. Longer term it will give us a better platform for a future vote.

Talk of UDI and holding another referendum on independence at this stage (before the parties down south have even had a chance to break "the vow") will just turn people away from voting SNP.

Correct. There will be a large number of people (myself included) who feel that the referendum result was decisive for now. The SNP need to position themselves as although still supporting and campaigning for independence in the long term, they are campaigning actively for FFA in the short-medium term. Most people in Scotland would IMO support this stance and failure of Westminster to deliver those powers would drive more people into the Yes camp. If FFA is delivered then it will only be a small step for any No voters to make the step to Yes following that.

[EvilScotsman]

If the stated method of achieving independence changes from the very clear (a yes/no referendum) to the somewhat vague (a majority of Holyrood and / or Westminster seats and / or a majority of votes being cast for parties which have stated this (along with a number of other policies) in their manifestos) it creates an atmosphere of political uncertainty.

After their first referendum defeat, the PQ concentrated on being an effective government and making sure that the federal government delivered its promises made pre-referendum (which it didn't - brought most starkly into light by the goings on around the Meech Lake Accord). This was a very effective strategy, giving delivering the chance of a second referendum, which was crucially viewed as 'legitimate' by the Quebec people, just 15 years later. However, since the failure of the second referendum, the PQ have drifted towards the 'somewhat vague' option, refusing to state if and when a PQ government would call another referendum, and stating that it wouldn't be strictly necessary in any case. They've been out of power for almost all of the past decade, and were absolutely trounced in elections earlier this year. The policy is seen as mendacious.

Fair enough. (I should point out at this point that I actually meant to type 'particularly comparable' but somehow between my head and my hands it became 'remotely').

I should imagine, however, that the Quebecois have their own media, i.e. not controlled from Ottawa (capital of Canada? - it's one of the ones I can never remember!), and so wouldn't have been subject to the same onslaught of biased media coverage and demonisation of the 'seperatists' (I believe they were referred to as 'sovereigntists' in Quebec?).

Also, Quebec has a far greater proportion of MP's in the Canadian House of Parliament than the Scottish electorate do at Westminster.

I appreciate it's probably the closest comparison, but just because something didn't work in Quebec doesn't mean it wouldn't here.

[Rossy]

And what's the 'looney left'?

Going by his lack of condemnation, it'll be anyone to the left of Eddarrd and his fascist loyalist mates in George Square.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Rossy

[thorbotnic]

Fair enough. (I should point out at this point that I actually meant to type 'particularly comparable' but somehow between my head and my hands it became 'remotely').

I should imagine, however, that the Quebecois have their own media, i.e. not controlled from Ottawa (capital of Canada? - it's one of the ones I can never remember!), and so wouldn't have been subject to the same onslaught of biased media coverage and demonisation of the 'seperatists' (I believe they were referred to as 'sovereigntists' in Quebec?).

Also, Quebec has a far greater proportion of MP's in the Canadian House of Parliament than the Scottish electorate do at Westminster.

I appreciate it's probably the closest comparison, but just because something didn't work in Quebec doesn't mean it wouldn't here.

Quebec has a number of 'independent' newspapers, similar to the situation in Scotland - most of them back the federalists (unionists) as they are backed by big business interests. Radio-canada, the francophone arm of the CBC, is widely seen to be pro-federalist too. It's pretty similar overall tbh.

Quebec has 75 out of 338 seats in the federal Parliament - which is indeed more, proportionally, than Scotland has at Westminster - but Quebec's population is proportionally more of Canada's, too.

[Guest Extreme0]

What I think should be a valid tactic is incrementalism/gradualism. A method in which you make small, discrete increments to the country rather then go for the likes of uprisings/revolutions. While it can be somewhat a slow process and may introduce more problems if the public dose not support certain increments (Likewise if they do support the increments then it makes it a lot easier/quicker to implement) but it is a way to slowly drift Scotland and the rUK further apart which I have to say the Tories/Lib Dems are doing a wonderful job of that. Add to it that the 2015 General Elections, EU referendum, Devo troubles and a few other issues that may pop up soon and it will get more support that way.

Salmond & Sillars suggestion that having a majority again in the Scottish parliament is enough to declear Independence is a stupid suggestion. It will not only lead to getting a massive backlash from Scotland & rUK but also will damage the party in which many will not vote for...it will also work more favourably for the likes of those want to stop further devolution or outright abolish the parliament.

[Armchair Bob]

The SNP now need to show magnanimity and grace in defeat and work constructively for a while within the union. The contrast with Labour from 2007 onwards will then be all the more obvious to the voting public.

[thplinth]

I feel the SNP have almost been too honourable, too decent, too nice. After the last 10 days I'd be happy to see more of an edge. Not too much but an edge.

[Caledonian Craig]

The SNP now need to show magnanimity and grace in defeat and work constructively for a while within the union. The contrast with Labour from 2007 onwards will then be all the more obvious to the voting public.

And what if the promises made by Westminster either aren't met or are less than was promised?

[Fred_Zeppelin]

Independence without a vote, Day of Reckoning, Over 50'being singled out, blaming everyone but himself for Yes only obtaining 38% of the registered voters. The rhetoric is concerning from Salmond and Sillars. Thank goodness for Nicola Sturgeon and her calming words in the Guardian today in which she states she intends to align the SNP to devolution within the UK.

No-one mentioned independence without a vote.

Edited September 22, 2014 by ek_celt