Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tipping point. Why Scotland’s ultimate independence now looks
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tipping point. Why Scotland’s ultimate independence now looks inevitable
Wednesday was not one of those days when it was difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance. The SNP launched a choreographed flounce from the House of Commons following a spat between their leader Ian Blackford and the Speaker over the treatment of Scotland’s position in the Brexit debates.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Unlike an independent Scotland.
Thanks, Alastair. I tend to agree with you on this.
How disappointing. i don't normally write such long posts
An excellent header Alastair if for no other reason than that I've been looking unsuccessfully for a clear explanation of what the Scottish walkout was all about and you've finally provided one which is clear and succinct.
The further we travel into the murky underbelly of Brexit the more impossible it starts to look. It is like several trees which have over the years grown together and then trying to separate them without damaging the roots. It's impossible. Moreso when those doing the separating aren't experts and have little interest in the future of the trees other than wrenching them apart.
Brexit looks like its going to fail on many levels. This would be a catastrophy under any circumstances but particularly egregious when you realize it was done for the most base of reasons
Sadly, too many Brexiteers see it as not only a separation job, but want one of the saplings ground into the dust and destroyed. They then screech and scream pathetically when they think the EU is being obstructionist. Such Brexiteers are just pathetic fools.
The whole basis of the argument for the SNP's pathetic stunt is rubbish too, Westminster is already committed as it has made clear to devolving most powers reclaimed from Brussels concerning Scotland to Holyrood. However that cannot immediately include matters like EU food safety rules etc which must apply to the whole UK, in fact not assuring such rules apply UK wide would make a deal with the EU even more difficult thus defeating one of the SNP's supposed key aims in the first place
Fingers crossed.
'Nevertheless, the strong impression has been given of a government that is intending to steamroller its way past the rebellious Scots by the use of its residual power and forcing a settlement on its terms.’
The Government doesn’t really know what it wants but is bent on steam-rollering it’s way over any opposition, or even criticism, however rational and justified.
"Brexiteers don’t really know what they want but are bent on steam-rollering their way over any opposition, or even criticism, however rational and justified."
https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/1006912652734533633?s=21
Not sure I buy this.
If our departure* is essentially ok, then there won't be any drive to leave. If our departure is a mess, then that makes the SNP going for another independence referendum harder because they'll be arguing for a similar split but one that will have a deeper impact.
*Assuming we leave.
So that's a Scotland win then !! ....
In any case having just lost to the USA the Scottish rugby team is not exactly all conquering either
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44465090
The problem is that it is not binary. Not all Brexiteers are xenophobes (and it is crass to suggest it), but likewise it is crass to suggest that xenophobia did not play a significant role in the success of the Brexit vote. It is an elephant in the room for Brexiteers, and one they put their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la about.
What a bunch of charlatans!
Very few Remainers, on here or elsewhere, fit your description and they are imo balanced by the extreme Brexiteers who bang on about 'traitors', 'Remoaners', 'will of the people', etc.
We can certainly hope and pray that -- if Scotland votes 52:48 for independence -- the losers behave with more grace that the Remainers.
Is the choice now between New Labour (aka the Tories) and Labour?
Mr. Mark, indeed.
It was a mistake. Crashing out on WTO terms is not the way to fix it.
Unlike pregnancy Brexit (and Sindy) can be soft or hard. Herein lies a problem some Brexiteers have though - leaving the EU with a soft Brexit is not good enough for them.
https://twitter.com/chrisgiles_/status/1008224284945403904?s=21
Mr. Observer, for a start, a 70 year figure compared with a five year figure seems bloody weird. Secondly, how is a 3.4% annual real terms increase a sign of spending going down?
We are playing with a marked deck. That they marked.
Why has the data been divided arbitrarily into a 50 year period and a 5 year period?
If you want to show this, take a 5 year window-function through the data, and show us the graph.
TM has made a big move today by announcing the 20 billion increase for the NHS including the amount on the bus and while the amount the EU leaving dividend is is debatable the politics is terrific. The remainers debunking of the bus has just become a difficult argument to sustain
Southam should withdraw his posting -- it really is nonsense statistics.
You Brexit, you bought it. Own the mess you created.
***** Betting Post - World Cup *****
In yesterday's issue of The Times, the Fink Tank gave Brazil a 35% probability of winning the World Cup, greater in fact than their next four most favoured sides combined (which included England incidentally). Such a probability equates to bookies' odds of 1.86/1 (or 2.86 expressed in decimal odds).
It follows that If the Fink Tank have have done all their sums correctly, then the current best bookie's odds of 4/1 (or 5.0 decimal) appears to offer stonking positive value of +74.8%.
Those of a nervous disposition might like to consider taking out an element of insurance by also backing Brazil to finish as runners-up, available at best odds of 7/1.
The Fink Tank clearly thinks it's all over, to quote the immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme in 1966, but shrewd PBers should of course do their own research.
But it's easier to tweet that spending is going down when it isn't.
If you want to know about dodgy use of stats, read the full thread from the FT’s economics editor here:
https://twitter.com/chrisgiles_/status/1008216901376512001?s=21
It be a brave man who lays him for next PM
Edited extra bit: Mr. Pulpstar, let's hope he succeeds.
Happy days!
If gardening is an analogy for anything it is for allowing living things the space to breathe and grow not for jammimg them together in an overcrowded mess.
In any case the original Project Fear pretty much did all the things you suggest so no need to hypothesise.
But no, the people weren't to be allowed a say on the Grand European House of Cards. Because, you know, they might just blow it over.....
Scotland voted to remain part of the UK. The UK voted to leave the EU. The fact that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted in differing ways doesn't matter because every Briton's vote counted equally.
The alternatives to your grumpy SNP take on the result would be either for Scotland to have a veto, which would work wonderfully for stoking internal UK resentment and division, or for Scottish votes to be weighed more heavily than English ones, which would have a similar result.
It's also rather odd that the SNP and their ilk are grumpy about leaving the EU, when their victory in 2014 would have ensured Scotland leaving the EU. It's almost as if leaving the EU without England, Wales and Northern Ireland is wonderful, and leaving it with England, Wales and Northern Ireland is catastrophic. Which is a nonsensical position to hold.
Although it'd be interesting to know if we'd've ended up with a second referendum there, after a fresh change of font to the text.
The reality that anyone sensible must see is that Brexit has to be handled by the UK government and that internal (re)arrangements must come afterwards. It's therefore not a 'normal' (to use the Sewel terminology) circumstance and Holyrood's opinion cannot override Westminster's as that would amount to a veto by a devolved assembly on a decision taken across the whole country. No doubt some would like that. Ultra-Remainers and Scots Nationalists both have their reasons for dismissing the previous logic but the majority will not. The outcomes of UK referendums need to be resolved at Westminster.
Politically, it would be sensible for the government to have committed at an early stage to early devolution of returned powers, consistent with existing arrangements. It would still be sensible now. But that's a different point.
To address the bigger issue, devolution is and always was legally ultimately contingent on Westminster's goodwill. In theory, it could always be abolished by a simple Act of Parliament. In reality, it is the political situation in Scotland which determines how devolution develops. For as long as there is strong support for devolution, Westminster will not dare to override a Holyrood decision except where Holyrood extends itself beyond its remit - as here.
There is no inevitable in this matter. Brexit is demonstrating the difficulty of untangling 40 years of interaction with Europe; how much more difficult untangling more than 300 years of union? And that's before the more pragmatic questions of money have to be asked and answered (it's not just about how much of 'Scotland's oil' is left; it's about how relevant that'll be in a future where diesel is already being phased out and electric making great gains).
Besides, the simple maths is that unless the SNP can find a way to gain a second referendum before 2021, they need to generate another nationalist majority in Holyrood at the next election, having been in power for 14 years at that point. That's a huge ask and if they fail, the chances are that they won't get another chance until they've lost power altogether and then returned again - a process which would take us well into the 2030s.
Does it look more likely for the reasons given? I'd say yes. Are some unionists still complacent? Undoubtedly. Do I still think it will happen? Regretfully so. But I do think that independence has looked closer before and didn't come to pass and this case presumes no fightback is possible on some arguments which I think there will be.
It was obvious from the day the Brexit referendum result was announced that Nicola Sturgeon would do anything she could to crowbar the political crack it opened between England and Scotland into a new full blown drive for independence. But, the polling on independence doesn't support anything other than "no change" since 2014.
Scottish Independence isn't inevitable. And, if it ever becomes so, it won't be because the SNP have done a carefully choreographed flounce out of Westminster.
As I pointed out below, most of this is due to lifestyle factors, rather than health care.
There are really 2 issues. The first is that in a series of devolved matters many of the decisions have not been made by Holyrood but by Brussels. The Scottish government has been responsible for the administration but not the rules. That is about to change as the rule maker will now be British, not European. This creates an opportunity for a much more meaningful devolution of powers than we have had to date. The Scottish government wants those powers and are concerned that they will simply replace a Brussels regulator for a Westminster one. This is a legitimate concern and needs more discussion between the British and Scottish governments.
The second issue is the much more technical one about the return of those powers to the U.K. On one view this should be simple but it is not. It’s not because we have yet to work out what our relationship with the EU is going to be after Brexit. What will happen to the rights to fish in our waters currently owned by Spanish fishermen? How do we have a FTA without agreement about what is an acceptable farming subsidy and what is not? How much regulatory alignment are we going to need on, say, environmental matters? This will determine the scope and extent of the powers that any domestic regulator can have, devolved or not.
The British government as negotiator needs control of these issues now. If they don’t have them they can’t negotiate. Once we have the deal the internal application of those powers will have to be made. At that point it should be made clear that where the matter is devolved the decision making powers will be devolved too, at least within the context of the deal with the EU.
Ed Miliband did have a policy of apparently giving such benefits to the self-employed but I don't think any details actually emerged, and the basic idea sounded utterly bonkers in any case. [Which makes it mildly surprising May hasn't copied it].
Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, one had not forgotten that
I'd also assume when the next recession hits the economic price of sindy will seem less important to people, which is a major worry.
There's a lot riding on the Scottish unionists. We cannot rely on the negative case for the union and leave the positive case too late, we need the existence of the UK continually justified.
It won't be easy though. NI and Scotland both look on the edge. Good old Wales though. But apathy for the union in England has long been my major concern.
Indeed 79% of those who see themselves as English not British were Leavers as were 66% of those who see themselves as more English than British.
By contrast 60% of those who see themselves as British not English voted Remain as did 63% of those who see themselves as more British than English.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
I can. Good!
Sure: good to see the NHS getting some extra funding.
But ..... deep breath .....
1. I’m sure I remember a few years ago Brown announcing some fantastic NHS settlement which would settle things for years and then again under the coalition. So how soon will the NHS be back asking for more? There must come a time when we say: “ Enough”.
2. Is this really the most important priority to be spending our money on? Especially now at the start of an uncertain future outside the structures we have been used to for 4 decades. What about social care? Or education, skills training, apprenticeships, AI, technology, housing etc? Shouldn’t we be aiming for more than an an economy consisting of coffee shops staffed by people living in overcrowded rented flats who are able to get seen in A&E in less than 4 hours? Health is important but it is not - for an economy - the most important thing. And much of good health for an individual depends on their own choices.
3. So maybe we should be thinking about what individuals should be doing for and spending on their own health. And maybe, just maybe, if they make stupid choices, they have to bear the consequences. You know, like adults.
I hope this money is spent wisely and on those areas of health which need it - mental health, for instance - but I can’t help feeling that in a few years we’ll be back in the same place with yet more demands, more crises, more plugging of gaps. And so some hard thinking is needed about what an NHS should do and what it shouldn’t and what people may have to do and pay for themselves.