Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The question supporters of a ‘People’s vote’ need to answer. I
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The question supporters of a ‘People’s vote’ need to answer. If another referendum is good enough for the UK, then surely it must be good enough for Scotland?
Scotland could become an independent nation without another referendum if Scots elect a large majority of SNP MPs or if the SNP win a majority of the vote in Scotland at a Westminster GE.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You would prefer to be ruled by politicians we can't vote out rather than ones we can?
I find this attitude completely bizarre and surprisingly prevalent.
Similarly, those who are elected to the UK Parliament are part of a larger body. Even when the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MPs it did not have a majority in the UK Parliament and could not pass any legislation there.
Of course those arguing for a second referendum do weaken the argument for those that oppose a second referendum in Scotland in that they were both supposed to be once in a generation votes. But their obsession with the EU really means they give very little thought to that. Nothing is more important to them.
First, the UK votes to leave with a free unicorn for every household.
Second, tough negotiations reveal that there are no unicorns.
Third, the leave vote is overturned in a Second Referendum.
Now replace the UK with Scotland.
Once a referendum vote is overturned, then no single referendum vote can be considered final. There are dangers for the SNP in supporting a second referendum on the terms of the Deal, because the same will be claimed to apply to any successful Scottish independence vote.
Essentially, once a single referendum is insufficient to cause an event to happen, & multiple referendums have to succeed, then the bar for Scottish independence actually happening is substantially increased.
That's democracy, think of it as analogous to the 1918 general election in Ireland.
Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.
Let’s not have any more drivel please.
Edit - although it's more concerning you seem to think it would cause the assassination of Nicola Sturgeon...
I don't expect war but I can see Catalonia style unpleasantness, especially if the UK Prime Minister is someone like Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg dealing with this situation.
I'm sorry you don't like that but it does have a lot of (betting) implications, if you notice I'm also rather disdainful of the people behind the 'people's vote'.
If your aim is Scottish independence, why do you want a second vote on the terms of the deal? It is a very dangerous precedent.
I'd be surprised if independence came from a direct election rather than an independence referendum, but it seems a reasonable position on paper if the continued theme from Westminster is "now is not the time".
The biggest problem I think we're going to have convincing people to vote Yes is that it won't all turn into a massive shit-show like the Leave vote in EURef has, where ultimately, yes you can just about leave - with a bunch of compromises noone's a massive fan of and much wailing and gnashing of teeth to get there.
On the flipside the point will be made about basically a Remainer trying to Leave (in May) being quite sub-optimal and unlikely to be the same in post-Yes negotiations, but it's not the strongest rebuttal. I daresay a lot of folk on the fence won't be convinced it won't just end up in the same complicated dragged-out state of affairs. Seems reasonable. Like I say May could propose something in the immediate aftermath of a heavy defeat in the vote on the 11th in a desperate attempt to stay in position (by moving the narrative on and showing she still has ideas), but never actually end up delivering on it.
I could also see her losing the MV comfortably yet winning a Govt VONC (just) and a Tory VONC (relatively comfortably) and then noone having a clue where to go next.
The incredible thing is that there was not a third Quebec referendum, despite the PQ losing the last one traumatically by (50 - epsilon) to (50 + epsilon). There was not one more heave.
I think the same will be true of Europe. We will exit with May’s deal (or something very like it put forward by Gove or Corby), and then interest in Europe will die away after all the paroxysms of rage and angst.
If we fail to get a grip, we will suffer from greater political instability, which is not conducive to prosperity. Even worse, less and less people will see government as legitimate, opening a way to far uglier forms of politics.
If only we had a visionary statesman to lead us out of this mess.
I think the difference in situations is that for better or worse, Scottish indy has a much clearer prospectus (currency & EU membership uncertainties notwithstanding); we're two and a half years from the Brexit vote, four months from a no deal exit, and still NO ONE has a clue what's going to happen.
Hopefully at that point, either as a referendum choice or as a decision by parliament before the referendum, we also have a bit more idea *how* it leaves, eg with TMay's deal, don't take any deal, etc.
Of course Nicola Sturgeon, who is one of our more competent politicians, only wants a second referendum if she thinks she can win it. And there are some problems with that.
Last time around, rather like some deluded ERG members, we were repeatedly assured that a velvet divorce with rUK would be the easiest deal in history. Anyone claiming that now is likely to be laughed at.
Last time around there was an argument about whether Scotland could remain in the EU and thus the SM with rUK. What is clear, post Brexit, is that Scotland will have to choose and the SM with rUK is generally thought to be about 4x as important as the EU for Scottish trade.
Last time around there were many posters boasting about how the £1k extra tax revenue per head from the North Sea could be spent. Now the north sea, in tax terms, is pretty much a liability with massive reliefs and clear up costs to be funded.
I could go on but the truth is that an independent Scotland is currently far less viable than it was in 2014. A second referendum would be lost more substantially than the first. Nicola is waiting for the tides to change but she does have problems with the more impatient elements of her party.
If you don’t like the result of one referendum, you can have another.
That principle could apply to the 2014 SIndy referendum, or to any future referendums.
My main issue with a Sindy ref 2.0 is that it makes it a little harder for a Rejoin vote to succeed in England, though I think that winnable.
Can you give us an example a successful federal state that gives its subdivisions the unilateral right to secede? I’m sure lots of us would look forward to your answer.
At the same time if the voters of Scotland vote for a pro-independence government again, and they want to come back with a new proposal, or the same proposal in different circumstances (eg post-Brexit) that sounds totally legitimate to me. I don't really see how you could reasonably deny them the right to do it.
Since the UK isn't a federal state, successful or otherwise, you'll have to dig up a less crappy hypothetical.
And they riot a lot as well...
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1069235178042728448
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1069243882079166466
Should they fail to vote the "right" way a second time, the logic will be for a third. And a fourth. And a fifth.
Of course there's been lots of things happening recently which I didn't foresee, only for them to magically materialise before me (none of them good).
https://twitter.com/adriannorris/status/1069204466098941952?s=19
If we do leave, I think it is hard to see us rejoin as full members. .
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/everyone-needs-to-be-prepared-for-speed-chess-brexit-especially-labour
Whilst I don't count yourself in the latter, I suspect quite a few Nats will get enraged if the latter threshold is met but not enacted on by the SNP which will make Scotland unpleasant.
The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.
There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.
Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...
1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.
2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.
3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.
The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.
They are in last chance saloon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Midnights1&action=view#/talk/5
And frankly, Brexit or no Brexit, scotland is going to have another vote at some point so long as they continue to elect the SNP in droves.
The reduced percentage at 2017 certainly helped justify a pause, but if they continue to push for one and the people keep electing them it at some point is unreasonable to say no. A second might settle it, it might not, but there is no doubt the logic for the vote is because people voted the wrong way. This is clear because the justification is that people have changed their minds more than we just need to confirm things - so many second referendum supporters make clear it is about how this is the chance to stop Brexit, without even considering the possibility it might reconfirm it but harder. I think it is facetious to pretend it is not about getting it right this time. And I speak as one who does back a vote, simply as the most likely, if hardly certain, way of getting close to a resolution, whatever the outcome.