Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see Ian Murray has won his battle to convince Keir Starmer to adopt the 'no surrender to indyref2' policy position today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I see Ian Murray has won his battle to convince Keir Starmer to adopt the 'no surrender to indyref2' policy position today.

 

That's a great move for the SNP in the lead up to the Holyrood elections next year.  It locks Labour into a battle with the Tories for the Unionist vote, a share of the pie that is dwindling month on month.  It also makes it easier for the SNP to peel off the 30-40% of Labout voters that support Indy.   As far as having any say on any future referendum, I'd like to think it will all be done and dusted long before Starmer is anywhere close to 10 Downing Street 

Edited by aaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aaid said:

As far as having any say on any future referendum, I'd like to think it will all be done and dusted long before Starmer is anywhere close to 10 Downing Street 

How exactly?

Do you expect Cummings and Boris to capitulate after a stonking win for the SNP next year?

I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dave78 said:

How exactly?

Do you expect Cummings and Boris to capitulate after a stonking win for the SNP next year?

I don't.

Firstly, I'll be amazed if Cummings is around come May, I fully expect that he'll be gone early in the.New Year, if not before.  Quite a bit of shit still to come out about him.  I actually have my doubts as to whether Johnson will serve a whole term either.

Assuming a stonking win for the SNP and a solid Indy majority in Holyrood, I don't expect Boris Johnson to come straight to the table the day after saying "okay Nicola, here's your section 30, have your referendum".  I expect it'll be "harrumph, harrumph, no appetite, one United Kingdom, now is not the time, Pericles!".

Legally, constitutionally, he can continue to just say No, whether he can continue to do that politically is a different matter entirely  

Over the rest of 2021 moving into early 2022, then I expect there will be a ratcheting up of pressure and a big war of words between the two governments.  He will continue to say no but it will be a position that isn't sustainable, especially if support for Indy continues to rise, as you'd expect in those circumstances, lets that's consistently in the low 60s.  Opposing, Independence is a perfectly reasonable position to take, not allowing a referendum on that when their is a clear desire for it is a different matter entirely.

In parallel, I think the Scottish government will legislate to hold an advisory referendum - that will pass, but it will need to be tested in the courts and that will probably run through to early 2022, these things just take time.

That presents a real problem for Johnson.  If the court rules it's not in the competence of the Scottish government, then it's a victory but something of a phyrric one.  The fundamental problem is still there, that there is a fundamental desire for a referendum but in its ruling, the U.K. Supreme Court will have demonstrated one of the fundamental cases for independence in a very visible manner.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Scottish Government then it's even worse for them obviously.  That referendum wouldn't be illegal, it wouldn't be a wildcat action or anything like that.   The reason why the Spanish government was able to suppress the referendum in Catlonia, ignore the result and that pro-Spain voters could boycott it was because it was illegal under the Spanish constitution, under the UK constitution it would be 100% legal.   Of course, it's an advisory referendum, but so was the Brexit one but it would take one big set of baws to ignore it, particularly if it was a pretty conclusive win and 52/48 is considered conclusive by Johnson and his pals.

Tactically, it's also a problem for him, if he lets the SG referendum run its course as he loses all control over it.  In 2014, powers were transferred under the section 30 and the referendum was carried out by the Scottish Government.  However, in getting to that point there were months of negotiations over the terms which resulted in the Edinburgh Agreement.  In this case, if it's purely down to the SG setting the terms - while I doubt they'd do anything that would be considered unreasonable - then you can guarantee that every single aspect, question, timing, composition of electorate will be as favourable as it could be towards Indy.

In those circumstances, he might decide to bow to the inevitable, grant the section 30, so he can get some sort of control.

You also have to remember that this won't be the only problem he'll be having in the next couple of years.  There will be the fallout from COVID, both economically but also as various inquiries into the handling will be ongoing which I expect to be damning.  There will be the fallout economically from Brexit - the exact level of that is all that is uncertain.  That's not even considering the random stuff that all governments get into trouble over and this bunch of incompetents look to be as bad as it gets, eg, Robert Jenrick.

All of this leads to a government on PM under continuous pressure and assuming Labour gets its act together and provides a credible alternative, then you'll see his support within his party get antsy, particularly if their seats look threatened.   He'll still have his term to run until 2024 and still have his majority but he'll be increasingly more damaged.  There might be some in the Tory party, whispering in back rooms that, electorally speaking it might be good for them if there weren't any Scottish MPs.

Now I don't think that granting a Section 30 order is a way out of these troubles for him, rather that it's difficult if you have to fight on multiple fronts. 

This is often portrayed as the irresistible force meets the immoveable object.  In this case, I'm not sure the object is immoveable, I suspect it might turn out to be more of a wobbly blancmange. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aaid said:

Firstly, I'll be amazed if Cummings is around come May, I fully expect that he'll be gone early in the.New Year, if not before.  Quite a bit of shit still to come out about him.  I actually have my doubts as to whether Johnson will serve a whole term either.

Assuming a stonking win for the SNP and a solid Indy majority in Holyrood, I don't expect Boris Johnson to come straight to the table the day after saying "okay Nicola, here's your section 30, have your referendum".  I expect it'll be "harrumph, harrumph, no appetite, one United Kingdom, now is not the time, Pericles!".

Legally, constitutionally, he can continue to just say No, whether he can continue to do that politically is a different matter entirely  

Over the rest of 2021 moving into early 2022, then I expect there will be a ratcheting up of pressure and a big war of words between the two governments.  He will continue to say no but it will be a position that isn't sustainable, especially if support for Indy continues to rise, as you'd expect in those circumstances, lets that's consistently in the low 60s.  Opposing, Independence is a perfectly reasonable position to take, not allowing a referendum on that when their is a clear desire for it is a different matter entirely.

In parallel, I think the Scottish government will legislate to hold an advisory referendum - that will pass, but it will need to be tested in the courts and that will probably run through to early 2022, these things just take time.

That presents a real problem for Johnson.  If the court rules it's not in the competence of the Scottish government, then it's a victory but something of a phyrric one.  The fundamental problem is still there, that there is a fundamental desire for a referendum but in its ruling, the U.K. Supreme Court will have demonstrated one of the fundamental cases for independence in a very visible manner.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Scottish Government then it's even worse for them obviously.  That referendum wouldn't be illegal, it wouldn't be a wildcat action or anything like that.   The reason why the Spanish government was able to suppress the referendum in Catlonia, ignore the result and that pro-Spain voters could boycott it was because it was illegal under the Spanish constitution, under the UK constitution it would be 100% legal.   Of course, it's an advisory referendum, but so was the Brexit one but it would take one big set of baws to ignore it, particularly if it was a pretty conclusive win and 52/48 is considered conclusive by Johnson and his pals.

Tactically, it's also a problem for him, if he lets the SG referendum run its course as he loses all control over it.  In 2014, powers were transferred under the section 30 and the referendum was carried out by the Scottish Government.  However, in getting to that point there were months of negotiations over the terms which resulted in the Edinburgh Agreement.  In this case, if it's purely down to the SG setting the terms - while I doubt they'd do anything that would be considered unreasonable - then you can guarantee that every single aspect, question, timing, composition of electorate will be as favourable as it could be towards Indy.

In those circumstances, he might decide to bow to the inevitable, grant the section 30, so he can get some sort of control.

You also have to remember that this won't be the only problem he'll be having in the next couple of years.  There will be the fallout from COVID, both economically but also as various inquiries into the handling will be ongoing which I expect to be damning.  There will be the fallout economically from Brexit - the exact level of that is all that is uncertain.  That's not even considering the random stuff that all governments get into trouble over and this bunch of incompetents look to be as bad as it gets, eg, Robert Jenrick.

All of this leads to a government on PM under continuous pressure and assuming Labour gets its act together and provides a credible alternative, then you'll see his support within his party get antsy, particularly if their seats look threatened.   He'll still have his term to run until 2024 and still have his majority but he'll be increasingly more damaged.  There might be some in the Tory party, whispering in back rooms that, electorally speaking it might be good for them if there weren't any Scottish MPs.

Now I don't think that granting a Section 30 order is a way out of these troubles for him, rather that it's difficult if you have to fight on multiple fronts. 

This is often portrayed as the irresistible force meets the immoveable object.  In this case, I'm not sure the object is immoveable, I suspect it might turn out to be more of a wobbly blancmange. 

 

Great post, and it helps to allay my fears about the SNP high command actually having a 'plan A'.

My only question is about the court battle. Obviously Covid has put the brakes on everything, but why didn't the SG test the legalities of a referendum as soon as Theresa May rejected the S30 request? Or at least as soon as the UK officially left the EU (back in January)? I can't see any reason for the delay? Does Sturgeon not feel her mandate was explicit/strong enough?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dave78 said:

I see Ian Murray has won his battle to convince Keir Starmer to adopt the 'no surrender to indyref2' policy position today.

 

Well that certainly isn't going to help elevate his party's standing in Scotland. All it does is condemn Scottish Labour to more years in the political doldrums in Scotland. When are these cretins ever going to realise? Their so-called mantra used to be that they were the people's party. Hmm well not anymore considering they are point blank ignoring around 50% of Scottish voters by point blank refusing IndyRef2 anytime soon. It is ludicrous really. It is aking to opening a shop in a hot country but point blank refusing to sell chilled drinks and refreshments. Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Well that certainly isn't going to help elevate his party's standing in Scotland. All it does is condemn Scottish Labour to more years in the political doldrums in Scotland. When are these cretins ever going to realise? Their so-called mantra used to be that they were the people's party. Hmm well not anymore considering they are point blank ignoring around 50% of Scottish voters by point blank refusing IndyRef2 anytime soon. It is ludicrous really. It is aking to opening a shop in a hot country but point blank refusing to sell chilled drinks and refreshments. Crazy.

They are probably trying to win back the votes they lost to the Tories with their ( Tories ) popularity waning. . 
That seems to be the total depth of Labour’s vision, content to scrap for the ever reducing unionist vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave78 said:

 

Great post, and it helps to allay my fears about the SNP high command actually having a 'plan A'.

My only question is about the court battle. Obviously Covid has put the brakes on everything, but why didn't the SG test the legalities of a referendum as soon as Theresa May rejected the S30 request? Or at least as soon as the UK officially left the EU (back in January)? I can't see any reason for the delay? Does Sturgeon not feel her mandate was explicit/strong enough?

 

That's all my own views, not saying I've a hotline to Jackson's Entry or anything - actually given the current leader of the Scottish Tories and the connotations of the address, the SNP might want to consider relocating.   I could be totally wrong but that's the way I see it playing out.  It's all in the context of the SNP winning in 2016 and the trend of rising support for Independence continuing.  If that doesn't happen all bets are off.   

Even if Johnson were somehow to pull it off and tough it out for another 3 1/2 years, you'd be going into that 2024 UK GE with the SNP looking like they'd repeat the 2015 result if not do a complete clean sweep.  In that context, what would Starmer do?   I suspect this is a position looking firmly at next year's Holyrood elections and signals what Labour's intentions and strategy will be there, after that...

As for the HR referendum, it's something that - in particular - Joanna Cherry - who loves a battle in the courts - has been pushing pretty strongly over the last few months and she seems to think its getting some traction with the party hierarchy, it makes a lot of sense from a strategic perspective as well so I'd be surprised if they didn't go down that road.  They've been moving towards that with some of the enabling legislation going though at the moment with the Referendums Bill, which sets out the general terms and framework under which Holyrood would conduct *any* referendum.   Under that bill, any individual referendum would require to be passed first by Holyrood - but it's pretty obvious to everyone exactly what referendum this bill is set to enable.  Actually just double checked to see when that bill would be passed and it became law on January 29th.

Had COVID not happened, I think there might well have been a move sometime in the autumn, might even have started before the summer, to table the bill for a Holyrood Indy referendum with the intention of either getting it past the parliament - the majority is there but there is a process to follow and before the courts - even if not fully complete before the 2021 elections.   Then looking for the 2021 elections as the clear mandate to have that referendum, probably in late 2021/early 2022.  

In terms of referring it to the courts, it would first go to the Court of Session and then Supreme Court.  As we saw with the Prorogation cases, they can move very quickly when it's time critical - I think this would not be viewed as such and would take quite a few months to complete - after 314 years, a few months won't make much of a difference.   

There's a few ways that it could go before the courts.   The most obvious one is that the UK government objects and refers it to the courts.   The other is that the Scottish government could do the same, given they'd probably rather have the referendum ruled to be outwith their competence rather than have one and then have the result overturned.   In both those cases though, Holyrood would pass the legislation but it wouldn't be implemented until the court had ruled.

The other way - and I think this is more likely - is that when the SG tables the legislation, the Presiding Officer, Ken McIntosh, rules it to be outwith the competence of Holyrood, the SG, through the Lord Advocate then refers that to the courts for judicial review.   That's what happened with some of the Brexit legislation, if you remember.   The PO's fully entitled to do that and while it would know doubt be portrayed as a Unionist stitch-up, I actually think that would be better.  The key question here is around the legality of this approach and so it's better to get that out of the way as soon as possible I'd have thought.

Post-COVID though, I wouldn't like to think of what the timetable is now, but if they decide to go down this route getting a decision from the Supreme Court - whatever way it goes - before the election would be hugely beneficial I'd have thought.

Why not before now? I think Sturgeon has probably thought that support wasn't there to win a referendum even though they had the mandate from the 2016 election to call one.   She's naturally a cautious politican and has always said, she wants to have one but more importantly she wants to win one.   She's recently extended that to say "and she wants to be able to deliver on it", which is important in the context around the need to have legality to get international recognition - which ultimately is what it's all about, you're only really an independent country if all the other countries - or at least most of them and the ones which matter - think you are.

Remember the Brexit referendum was only a month after the Holyrood elections and since then everything has been about Brexit, until COVID.  We've basically had a gap of about three months since December GE and the COVID crisis hitting - and a chunk of that was the Christmas holidays.

There was a spike in support for Indy in the immediate aftermath of that vote but it very quickly fell back to where it had been previously - give or take, up until about January 2019, polls have been pretty much unchanged since the referendum.   It's only since then, as Brexit has started to unwind itself that people have gradually been moving and COVID is probably moving that along even more.   Each of those individuals with have their own "final straw".     

If you add on the results from the 2017 UK general election, its probably safe to say that the FM got the jitters a bit and while not exactly rowing back wasn't pushing it too hard.   She probably thought at that point that now wasn't the the time to win it and that things probably had to unwind a bit more - I think she's been proven to be right on that.

Then you've got the whole saga of Theresa May 2017-2019 and the Johnson government prior to December.  No doubt whole shelves will be devoted to books about that period and what all the parties thought they were trying to do and how they thought things would turn out.

The other thing is that while it was clearly not the case that there was "no" appetite for another referendum - until fairly recently -  it wasn't been obvious that there was a clear majority who wanted it and that was a difficult argument for the SNP to win - at that point.   Remember, the polling questions would be sort of don't want one at all, want one now, want one before 2021, want one but not for a while, so could be twisted to show whatever you wanted.   So again, I just think its an argument they can't win, not that that will stop them trying of course.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dave78 said:

I see Ian Murray has won his battle to convince Keir Starmer to adopt the 'no surrender to indyref2' policy position today.

 

Don't think he would have needed Murray to convince Starmer. Given he is a knight of the realm, he's more in entrenched in protecting the Establishment than Murray will ever be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

His rant really did confuse me, its hardly a surprise to find white people in high level jobs when the country is almost entirely white. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Orraloon said:

I find hard to understand the logic of stuff like this. Do they really think that the best way to tackle racism is to rant on about the colour of folk's skin? 

Anti-racist my erchie.

 

He must know better as well yet he still peddles this Al Sharpton level bullshit. And this is a senior SNP politician... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/shahmir-sanni-claims-brexiteers-hate-welsh-and-scots-in-the-national-podcast-1-6652698

Vote Leave whistleblower claims Brexiteers in UK government ‘hate’ Welsh and Scots

PUBLISHED: 10:37 14 May 2020 | UPDATED: 07:59 18 May 2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I don't think the EU are going to help us.

That's the bit I don't get about it either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, aaid said:

That's the bit I don't get about it either.  

We are a barganing chip for the EU, they will use us as leverage kind of like “if you dont give us what we want we will encourage an indy scot” The eu is no friend of our just now, that may change after the withdrawal deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Well the statistics are certainly no friend to the dumbass arguments / politics of antifa and BLM. Which is why they trigger them so badly I guess. 

"dumbass" you've immersed yourself so much into this you're typing like an American now. Neuroplasticity in action.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

We are a barganing chip for the EU, they will use us as leverage kind of like “if you dont give us what we want we will encourage an indy scot” The eu is no friend of our just now, that may change after the withdrawal deal

Everyone is just going to do what they perceive is in their best interests, just the way these things work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

His rant really did confuse me, its hardly a surprise to find white people in high level jobs when the country is almost entirely white. 

 

I think the point is about under-representation more generally. (Point picked up under BLM thread.)

 

6 hours ago, Orraloon said:

I find hard to understand the logic of stuff like this. Do they really think that the best way to tackle racism is to rant on about the colour of folk's skin?

 

Yes I guess so. I'm not saying it's the way I'd do it - but I am not Humza Yousaf. Who probably likes a bit of a rant from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

We are a barganing chip for the EU, they will use us as leverage kind of like “if you dont give us what we want we will encourage an indy scot” The eu is no friend of our just now, that may change after the withdrawal deal

Unless there's some major changes - which doesn't look likely - then the referendum will be well after there's any trade deal in place or indeed, there's been no deal.  That's all due to have happened by the end of the year.  Won't be any major push for a referendum until after the Holyrood elections.   I'm not sure what Wishart is getting at with getting the EU involved though, that makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There wont be any referendum sanctioned by Westminster

Does anyone really still think there will be ?

The Holyrood election next year will be for all intent and purpose a vote on Independence

That is the only option Scotland will have to become Independent IMO and it will be made clear before the vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...