Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
The bit that is working is that the drug companies (many of them around the world) found a vaccine that works, we got approval quickly and then our brilliant NHS staff are getting needles in arms.
Even if we could ignore the grotesque chaos and London to Bristol line of dead bodies (which any decent person cannot), the notion that Shagger was personally responsible for the development of the vaccine round the world or our regulator signing it off or the NHS which was left on the brink of disaster by his actions and inactions now getting jabs in arms is preposterous.
He has slaughtered tens of thousands who need not have died. He was brought businesses and people to ruin by excluding whole sectors from the support needed. He has actively interfered with the experts trying to keep this under control.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
"the PM has slaughtered tens of thousands"?
Only February and yet we already have the 2021 Hyperbole Champion.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
I do not believe the following statement, for which I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in political history.
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
If you’re going to quote me, don’t partially quote me. The first part of that sentence was important. You have dishonestly misrepresented what I said.
You know better than me but I cannot see how if this happens in New Zealand, which has had near to zero people in or out for the best part of a year, we can possibily hope to get to Zero Covid.
We can't. Guernsey has had border controls for 11 months & testing on arrival for all arrivals for 6 - and it still got through. The good news is that even though it has got into Care Homes again, because they'd all been vaccinated 3 weeks previously, only 2 caught it and they have mild symptoms. So far we've had nearly double the cases of the first wave and none of the deaths.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
I do not believe the following statement, for which I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in political history.
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
If you’re going to quote me, don’t partially quote me. The first part of that sentence was important. You have dishonestly misrepresented what I said.
Ah, the Meeks hissy fit. I knew we were due one.
I’m not expecting an apology from you because you are not capable of admitting your intellectual dishonesty. But others can read what I actually wrote in the thread header.
Of course. Others can decide whether your argument is plausible or not.
Your point is the rather lawyerly : "The real world consequence of this counterfactual is that it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine. "
My point is "Real politicians and voters do not reside in this desert of intellectual aridity. Individual politicians are driven by self-interest, political parties are driven by the excessive drooling for power, and voters are not very rational"
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
Neither the word 'summoned' or 'told' is part of the original quote. If they were, they would have been included in it. Maybe you should save your scorn for things that aren't made up?
Didnt enjoy that final over. Both teams wanted to avoid another over so they both engaged in time-wasting. I know its pretty hot there but not really an excuse for professional players.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
I do not believe the following statement, for which I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in political history.
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
If you’re going to quote me, don’t partially quote me. The first part of that sentence was important. You have dishonestly misrepresented what I said.
Ah, the Meeks hissy fit. I knew we were due one.
“Hissy fit” ? Are you twelve ?
Well, I suppose the last time Meeks & myself had a disagreement, he used his silver lawyer's tongue to call me "an arsehole" repeatedly.
As it happens, I don't mind being insulted with some panache ...
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
Well to my mind it should be anyone aged 18 or over who qualifies for Scottish citizenship after independence. Does being born in Newcastle to Scottish parents make someone not Scottish? I find that hard to believe.
Remember that kite flying exercise back in January regarding a 0.48% Land Value Tax to replace Council Tax - well there is a well designed campaign / "petition" website for it at https://fairershare.org.uk/
For any Tory Ministers looking at this - it will give Red Wall constituents a tax cut.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
Refusing Scotland another vote when its voters had given an absolute majority to parties standing on a manifesto for a fresh independence referendum would be to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
Let's be fair. It's not Empire. It's a new, superstrength, purified "Anglosphere" whereby now free of European sag & drag, the mighty us (Britain) plus "the cousins" (USA) plus the White Commonwealth ("the chaps you can trust") stand as one against all that we fear and find threatening or just a bit "off".
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as edit: formal/legal Scots nationality or citizenship editr: other than residency, before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
I thought the above link was quite an interesting discussion on “what happens next”.
I’m not convinced about denying a vote - the ref looks winnable for the UK tbh
Game Theory afficionadoes should weigh in here. Unionists losing a referendum would destroy Unionism but 'Yes' losing one now would still leave the door open (albeit slightly less open) to a rerun later. Unionists have more to lose by allowing one in current circumstances, but for Nationalists losing is only a setback.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as edit: formal/legal Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
Easy to arrange, register using birth certificate and cross-reference to electoral roll.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Remember that kite flying exercise back in January regarding a 0.48% Land Value Tax to replace Council Tax - well there is a well designed campaign / "petition" website for it at https://fairershare.org.uk/
For any Tory Ministers looking at this - it will give Red Wall constituents a tax cut.
Anything based on a national scale of house prices should be dead on arrival. It would be utterly toxic for the losing areas, who could see their taxes rise massively, and it incentivises the recipients of the funding to keep house prices higher.
Politically, the LDs would love it, as whole swathes of southern England turned yellow.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
I thought the above link was quite an interesting discussion on “what happens next”.
I’m not convinced about denying a vote - the ref looks winnable for the UK tbh
Game Theory afficionadoes should weigh in here. Unionists losing a referendum would destroy Unionism but 'Yes' losing one now would still leave the door open (albeit slightly less open) to a rerun later. Unionists have more to lose by allowing one in current circumstances, but for Nationalists losing is only a setback.
Counter theory: Unionists should get one in now while the Queen is alive, because the loss of her personal vote vs Charles is enough to swing it. You'd want a proper Talking Heads clause in the Act this time, obv.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
One appreciates why the New Zealand Government is coming under pressure re: the lack of vaccinations. The flipside of a successful elimination campaign is that the potential costs of letting the disease re-establish are so huge that finding any cases at all in the community = panic and lockdowns.
Yes - they have no population immunity whatsoever. The jury is out on that elsewhere, I was surprised to see Neil Ferguson suggest parts of the UK are getting close, but they will be absolutely clobbered if they open up even slightly before everyone is vaccinated.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as edit: formal/legal Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
Easy to arrange, register using birth certificate and cross-reference to electoral roll.
Easy to say. Anyone can order up a birth cert. There's no indication that a birth cert of 1950 in name A.B is for the same person as A.B living in Epping in 2023. Hell, HYUFD could get the vote if he wanted.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
The Democrats in Congress have shown political ineptitude on an almost unprecedented scale. They should have left this alone and allowed the GOP to eat itself from the insides out. They have almost resurrected Trump.
Disagree. It needed doing and they did it well. This "acquittal" will resurrect Trump in the same way that OJ Simpson's did.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as edit: formal/legal Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
Easy to arrange, register using birth certificate and cross-reference to electoral roll.
Easy to say. Anyone can order up a birth cert. There's no indication that a birth cert of 1950 in name A.B is for the same person as A.B living in Epping in 2023. Hell, HYUFD could get the vote if he wanted.
Isn't that what the Met did with the 'undercover' policemen (and I think they were all men. All the ones we know about anyway!)
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as edit: formal/legal Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
Easy to arrange, register using birth certificate and cross-reference to electoral roll.
Easy to say. Anyone can order up a birth cert. There's no indication that a birth cert of 1950 in name A.B is for the same person as A.B living in Epping in 2023. Hell, HYUFD could get the vote if he wanted.
Fair point. There would have to be penalties for fraud and clear linkage back to individual so they can be prosecuted but doable.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as edit: formal/legal Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
Easy to arrange, register using birth certificate and cross-reference to electoral roll.
Easy to say. Anyone can order up a birth cert. There's no indication that a birth cert of 1950 in name A.B is for the same person as A.B living in Epping in 2023. Hell, HYUFD could get the vote if he wanted.
Fair point. There would have to be penalties for fraud and clear linkage back to individual so they can be prosecuted but doable.
I always remember what Ed Balls famously said about prosecuting fraud: that it would be possible to have a country where 100% of potential fraud was investigated, but he wouldnt like to live in it.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
Refusing Scotland another vote when its voters had given an absolute majority to parties standing on a manifesto for a fresh independence referendum would be to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
Let's be fair. It's not Empire. It's a new, superstrength, purified "Anglosphere" whereby now free of European sag & drag, the mighty us (Britain) plus "the cousins" (USA) plus the White Commonwealth ("the chaps you can trust") stand as one against all that we fear and find threatening or just a bit "off".
I don't see any reason why the UK shouldn't collaborate with powers who share its values and broader foreign policy objectives - in fact, I'd say that's a necessary feature of any effective foreign policy; it's why international diplomacy exists. Moreover, it's not exclusionary: most of the Anglosphere countries are now more convincingly multiracial than the European Union itself, and the UK would clearly extend alliancing to nations like Nigeria and South Africa (as it is already seeking to do with Japan and India) if there was mutual interest there.
The weirder point is those who think we shouldn't do anything of the sort because they want to define our present-day policy solely in opposition to a past they define and caricature by selecting its worst features, totally divorced from the geopolitical reality and values of the time, and are embarrassed by those who don't agree that we should feel nothing but shame about it. They do this in order to make a values-statement about themselves, but through such indulgence they risk the whole world sliding backwards.
The proof of this is how aggressive and personal they get toward those who don't agree. Principled opposition would be able to engage in a more measured, balanced and collegiate way, with a proffered alternative. And there never is one, other than abstinence and self-flagellation.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
That would be sensible, which might well mean that the government doesn't do it.
With a few tweaks, it might be a very good plan for an incoming government in 2024.
Two quick points (it's Valentine's Day, and I'm in real trouble if I get caught):
(1) Nicola Sturgeon is popular across parts of the broader UK electorate because she offers more convincing opposition to Boris Johnson and the Conservatives than Labour do - she's also in office, and hence a real foil; (2) The idea that the SNP won't use every advantage (parliamentary, and non-parliamentary) to get the best possible concessions for themselves in any independence negotiations is touching; rUK will likely take a utilitarian line based on its own best interests alone, and the milk will sour quickly.
If you thought Brexit was tough - which was breaking a 45-year old regulatory and trading union with emerging federalist structures on top, and the emotion to boot - wait until you try and split a 300-year old country apart that's completely integrated monetarily and fiscally.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
Come on. Gerrymandering the electorate is not going to do unionism any favours. If unionism cannot win based on the normal Scottish electorate then the union is already dead.
I thought the above link was quite an interesting discussion on “what happens next”.
I’m not convinced about denying a vote - the ref looks winnable for the UK tbh
Game Theory afficionadoes should weigh in here. Unionists losing a referendum would destroy Unionism but 'Yes' losing one now would still leave the door open (albeit slightly less open) to a rerun later. Unionists have more to lose by allowing one in current circumstances, but for Nationalists losing is only a setback.
Counter theory: Unionists should get one in now while the Queen is alive, because the loss of her personal vote vs Charles is enough to swing it. You'd want a proper Talking Heads clause in the Act this time, obv.
An indyref1 was held when the Queen was alive in 2014, allowing an indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since the last one even if won would still see Nats push for indyref3 in the reign of King Charles.
However given even Sturgeon has said an independent Scotland would keep the Crown, a change of monarch would not make much difference, devomax would be more significant
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
Come on. Gerrymandering the electorate is not going to do unionism any favours. If unionism cannot win based on the normal Scottish electorate then the union is already dead.
So you're saying that future citizens of the country shouldn't have a say in whether it should be independent?
Fwiw, all of the Scots I know down here would vote Indy, so it's probably not as clear cut as you think.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as edit: formal/legal Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
Easy to arrange, register using birth certificate and cross-reference to electoral roll.
Easy to say. Anyone can order up a birth cert. There's no indication that a birth cert of 1950 in name A.B is for the same person as A.B living in Epping in 2023. Hell, HYUFD could get the vote if he wanted.
Fair point. There would have to be penalties for fraud and clear linkage back to individual so they can be prosecuted but doable.
I did consider using a UK passport as well but (a) not everyone has one and (b) it doesn't show current postal address anyway, just dob, so not much help for a common name, anbd (c) more work and cost.
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
Hasn't someone flown in with it, asymptomatically, done the quarantine and then produced the symptoms? This and one or two other odd events suggest that the virus can maybe be a bit wilier than we thought.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
What is/was so different about 2014? It was acceptable even to Mr Cameron - a blood and soil Scottish Unionist judging from his speeches.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Hatred of the English.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I like the premise of Today's piece by Alistair but my main issue is that he assumes that people either understand the description of what might happen or care. The reason the picture of Ed Milliband in Salmonds pocket was so effective is that it played to what people already believed.
The thing I don't get about counterfactuals and what sets politicians and party supporters apart is that they believe they will get things right. So I believe that the counterfactual of the Tories dealing with the pandemic badly is actually labour dealing with it badly but in a different way. Rarely do things go badly for one person looking at the same facts and significantly better for another.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
Come on. Gerrymandering the electorate is not going to do unionism any favours. If unionism cannot win based on the normal Scottish electorate then the union is already dead.
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones and more than 60% of French speaking Quebecois voted for independence, it was migrants from the rest of Canada and English speaking voters in the parts of Quebec that bordered Ontario and in western Montreal who won the vote for No
The paradoxical thing is that TV replays have had the (in most peoples opinions positive) effect of stopping batsman playing with their pads when the ball is on the stumps. But this seemingly doesnt extend to using your pads when the ball is outside the off stump to any greater extent than was already the case before TV replays were introduced, since its still the onfield umpire making that decision as it was before — because it looks like the TV replay cant overturn the original decision on whether a shot was played or not.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
Come on. Gerrymandering the electorate is not going to do unionism any favours. If unionism cannot win based on the normal Scottish electorate then the union is already dead.
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones and more than 60% of French speaking Quebecois voted for independence, it was migrants from the rest of Canada and English speaking voters in the parts of Quebec that bordered Ontario and in western Montreal who won the vote for No
I dont understand New Zealand and Australias zero covid policy without vaccination.
It is madness.
It’s hardly a conscious choice to have to wait a few months for vaccines. They’ll be out there as quickly as they can be manufactured.
It is a conscious choice to be absolutely slow AF ordering and procuring the vaccines. Neither nation has vaccinated a single individual AFAIK. It’s absolutely pathetic.
Approval as well, both regulators are engaged in the idiotic "my rules are safer than yours" dick waving contest. Aiui neither county has approved any of the current vaccines and are asking for "more data" on safety and other such delaying tactics. Despite the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has been given to 30m+ people globally, AZ to 10m+ globally and Moderna to 10m+ as well without any major incidents.
Truly ridiculous. Jacinda’s Island Prison policy was looking pretty clever ... until they had another outbreak. Now panic and no other road than lockdown.
She's grovelling to China at the moment for vaccines and investment. I wouldn't be surprised if the NZ stance on delaying western vaccines is related to this.
It's the danger of getting high on your own supply.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
What is/was so different about 2014? It was acceptable even to Mr Cameron - a blood and soil Scottish Unionist judging from his speeches.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Hatred of the English.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
It's also a nationalism (sic) which downplays Scottish history remarkably in general in political discourse. Just consider the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn. If that had been Churchill on a Battle of Britain airfield - or Westminster, which was a BoB battlefield - the Tories would have been all over it for months. Bruce in Scxotland, not so much: in fact not at all, apart form the moans in the NTS finance department at having to pay the stone and statue conservators.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
Come on. Gerrymandering the electorate is not going to do unionism any favours. If unionism cannot win based on the normal Scottish electorate then the union is already dead.
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones and more than 60% of French speaking Quebecois voted for independence, it was migrants from the rest of Canada and English speaking voters in the parts of Quebec that bordered Ontario and in western Montreal who won the vote for No
Fascinating
Even in 2014 52% of Scots born in Scotland and living in Scotland voted for independence, it was the vote by 72% of voters born in the rest of the UK and 57% of voters born outside of the UK living in Scotland to stay in the UK that won it for No
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
Come on. Gerrymandering the electorate is not going to do unionism any favours. If unionism cannot win based on the normal Scottish electorate then the union is already dead.
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones and more than 60% of French speaking Quebecois voted for independence, it was migrants from the rest of Canada and English speaking voters in the parts of Quebec that bordered Ontario and in western Montreal who won the vote for No
Fascinating
Even in 2014 52% of Scots born in Scotland voted for independence, it was the vote by 72% of voters born in the UK and 57% of voters born outside of the UK living in Scotland that won it for No
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
What is/was so different about 2014? It was acceptable even to Mr Cameron - a blood and soil Scottish Unionist judging from his speeches.
Just to get all the blood and soil lads' ducks in a row in my own head, they think that anyone born in Scotland though now resident elsewhere in the UK should get a vote, anyone English who had relocated to Scotland should get a vote and anyone ex of the EU now resident in Scotland shouldn't; have I got that right?
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
Well, you do seem to want to generate national policy out of a sample of one where the sample is you, and there are plenty of contexts where having lunch with your mother is indisputably idiotic and selfish.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
What is/was so different about 2014? It was acceptable even to Mr Cameron - a blood and soil Scottish Unionist judging from his speeches.
Just to get all the blood and soil lads' ducks in a row in my own head, they think that anyone born in Scotland though now resident elsewhere in the UK should get a vote, anyone English who had relocated to Scotland should get a vote and anyone ex of the EU now resident in Scotland shouldn't; have I got that right?
No, their argument must be that English relocatees don't get a vote, cos if their fellow Europeans don't, why should they? That's the only logical conclusion on blood and soil.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
Well, you do seem to want to generate national policy out of a sample of one where the sample is you, and there are plenty of contexts where having lunch with your mother is indisputably idiotic and selfish.
Some acceptance of the fact that the vaccinated (and the young) are going to start acting more normally would be a decent first step...
I think the only realistic way that rhinoceros could be kept as pets would be through selective breeding. Humans bred dogs from wolves to many different forms and sizes. I suspect that dog sized rhinos could make quite good watch-rhinos with acute hearing and smell to drive off interlopers. Continence and grazing would mean more garden domestication than living room. I don't see lap rhinos being too popular.
As for the impact on WW2, would the Germans have headed south rather than east, securing the rhino's homelands - rather than pushing for that fatal mistake of Moscow? Africa, not Asia. The U-boats based out of Cape Town would have ensured that the world could not trade between Europe, Africa and Asia. Germany would have had Africa's huge resources - including its oil-resource, shifting the planning of the Case Blue and Operation Edelweiss charge towards Baku.
But if they had declared for the rhinos, surely the elephants would have kicked their racist arses all the way back to Berlin?
Who was WW2's Hannibal?
WW1's Hannibal was Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. Fought an excellent campaign against the odds, but was ultimately on the losing side.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
Isn't it. I find it particularly infuriating because those I know well who have been the most critical of others have all been breaking the rules themselves.
The culture of fear really does turn people doesn't it...
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
What is/was so different about 2014? It was acceptable even to Mr Cameron - a blood and soil Scottish Unionist judging from his speeches.
Just to get all the blood and soil lads' ducks in a row in my own head, they think that anyone born in Scotland though now resident elsewhere in the UK should get a vote, anyone English who had relocated to Scotland should get a vote and anyone ex of the EU now resident in Scotland shouldn't; have I got that right?
No, their argument must be that English relocatees don't get a vote, cos if their fellow Europeans don't, why should they? That's the only logical conclusion on blood and soil.
If they qualify for citizenship then they should, of they don't then no. If they have been there for more than five years and would have indefinite leave to remain and get citizenship they absolutely should get to vote, for EU and UK citizens alike.
The qualifier should be "does this person qualify for Scottish citizenship in an independent nation" if the answer is yes then they should get a vote on such a hugely important matter.
All of my European friends who have been here for long enough are taking up their citizenship rights, I don't see why people who are long term residents in Scotland wouldn't also do the same in an independent Scotland.
" it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine." Because you think the average voter will work their way through the counterfactual process you've just set out, to realise that?
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
It would be morally right as independence would destroy the chosen identity of the Scottish British and many Scots in rUK are temporarily absent. In addition it would strip away the BS veneer of "Civic Nationalism" which is a fig leaf and a trick to recruit "useful fools" in the intelligentsia.
You mean the BS veneer of the current Scottish legislation that allows anyone legally resident and on the roll to vote? I might consider negotiating to use the current Scottish voter role plus any migrant Scot who had been on the roll within say the last ten years. My one demand is that Andrew Neil be excluded whatever the criteria just to see his fat red face get fatter and redder.
Th BS veneer is the SNP attempting to conceal the prime motivation of their nationalism, hatred of the English. Its a funny sort of nationalism btw that downplays the astonishing achievements of Scots as part of the union. The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment don't fit the narrative.
Hatred of the English.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
It's also a nationalism (sic) which downplays Scottish history remarkably in general in political discourse. Just consider the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn. If that had been Churchill on a Battle of Britain airfield - or Westminster, which was a BoB battlefield - the Tories would have been all over it for months. Bruce in Scxotland, not so much: in fact not at all, apart form the moans in the NTS finance department at having to pay the stone and statue conservators.
The Churchill statute in Parliament Square has been vandalised on a number of occasions, in the May Day protests in 2000, and last year during the BLM protests for example. A number of Tories were indeed "all over it" for a while but it is a commonplace enough occurence as to pass unnoticed after a bit.
Does anyone think anyone is going to play a blind bit of notice to this far too slow opening of society (never mind the economy).
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
Yes, because most people aren’t that idiotic or selfish. Why not celebrate Mum’s birthday in the summer when everyone will have had their vaccine?
Idiotic and selfish to have lunch with your mother? Blimey.
I see we are back to the PB Stasi decrying as selfish anything outside their puritanical, holier-than-thou worldview.
Saddening.
You could perhaps lay out arguments against the harsher approach - there are certainly plenty to use - rather than just whinging that people are being puritannical.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
What is/was so different about 2014? It was acceptable even to Mr Cameron - a blood and soil Scottish Unionist judging from his speeches.
Just to get all the blood and soil lads' ducks in a row in my own head, they think that anyone born in Scotland though now resident elsewhere in the UK should get a vote, anyone English who had relocated to Scotland should get a vote and anyone ex of the EU now resident in Scotland shouldn't; have I got that right?
No, their argument must be that English relocatees don't get a vote, cos if their fellow Europeans don't, why should they? That's the only logical conclusion on blood and soil.
If they qualify for citizenship then they should, of they don't then no. If they have been there for more than five years and would have indefinite leave to remain and get citizenship they absolutely should get to vote, for EU and UK citizens alike.
The qualifier should be "does this person qualify for Scottish citizenship in an independent nation" if the answer is yes then they should get a vote on such a hugely important matter.
All of my European friends who have been here for long enough are taking up their citizenship rights, I don't see why people who are long term residents in Scotland wouldn't also do the same in an independent Scotland.
But anyone could qualify if they moved in and stayed for long enough, no? So that criterion doesn't work. Hell, again, HYUFD could claim he intended to come and work in Scotland.
I have to go and do some family admin now, but this was obviously done very differently in 2014 and it would be interesting to know exactly why, apart from it simply being the matter of choosing between the two available elevtoral rolls in Scotland - the one used for Westminster and the one used for local gmt/referenda by law.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
No list. As was determined by the UKG in 2012-ish.
So make a new one that includes them. If they are to be citizens of an independent Scotland I think ensuring they have a vote in its formation is pretty bloody important.
Scottish colleague of mine once said that, if Independence happened, such people would presumably default to being English.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
If I were Boris I would say to Scotland (and to the wider United Kingdom):
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
Good stuff and an interesting idea. I wonder who the Chairman might be, and how the SNP would react to being a minority on the commission. And secondly, crucially, would its report require unanimity among its members or will a majority do?
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
You couldn't have a deadlocked Commission that could be thwarted in reaching a majority view. As to who - somebody of the calibre of Chris Patton, who oversaw the transition of Hong Kong.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
Another condition for an Indy Ref should be votes for anyone on the electoral register in rUK who was born in Scotland.
Good old blood and soil nationalism.
Jus sanguinis and jus soli is an accepted mechanism for giving someone the vote (via citizenship, of course). I don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate in this scenario, anyway.
But there is no such thing as Scots nationality or citizenship before the referendum. So no clear listing and no unambiguous documentation such as a passport.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
So figure it out then. It's been 10 years since then. Birth certificates list place of birth base it on that and make it optional. You can't offer citizenship to only those people present in the country after independence. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of Scottish people living overseas who would be denied a right to Scottish citizenship if that's the measure.
You're confusing two things, I think. the referendum and the citizenship process.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
Then why not let them vote?
Come on. Gerrymandering the electorate is not going to do unionism any favours. If unionism cannot win based on the normal Scottish electorate then the union is already dead.
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones and more than 60% of French speaking Quebecois voted for independence, it was migrants from the rest of Canada and English speaking voters in the parts of Quebec that bordered Ontario and in western Montreal who won the vote for No
Fascinating
Even in 2014 52% of Scots born in Scotland voted for independence, it was the vote by 72% of voters born in the UK and 57% of voters born outside of the UK living in Scotland that won it for No
Can you please explain what your point is rather than simply dumping unanalysed statistics on the table?
That native born residents of a country tend to vote for that country's independence given the choice but a country is made up of more than just those who were born there and are still living there.
Interesting that Tory voters are the most in favour of their widest use but it's Tory MPs agitating against introducing them at all.
I suspect they are inevitable - but in the interests of fairness should ONLY be done after everyone who is eligible for a vaccine has had a chance to get one. What surprised me a little about that poll was that those who will be last to be vaccinated were more in favour of domestic passports than those who will be first:
In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones and more than 60% of French speaking Quebecois voted for independence, it was migrants from the rest of Canada and English speaking voters in the parts of Quebec that bordered Ontario and in western Montreal who won the vote for No
Perhaps also interesting is that attitude of the Francophones in the rest of Canada.
New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick, the only bilingual province, is about 33 % Francophone.
Comments
Your point is the rather lawyerly : "The real world consequence of this counterfactual is that it may well be much harder for the Conservatives to scare voters about the dangers of SNP influence at the next election than they presently seem to imagine. "
My point is "Real politicians and voters do not reside in this desert of intellectual aridity. Individual politicians are driven by self-interest, political parties are driven by the excessive drooling for power, and voters are not very rational"
Let's see what happens.
As it happens, I don't mind being insulted with some panache ...
Yes, I enjoyed by oysters.
For any Tory Ministers looking at this - it will give Red Wall constituents a tax cut.
This was all discussed in 2012-2013.
Politically, the LDs would love it, as whole swathes of southern England turned yellow.
1. There is clearly a continued head of steam for Scotland to better determine its destiny.
2. I think they are wrong for that to be implemented by full independence. I firmly believe
that such independence will not deliver those benefits so easily promised by the SNP. And I'm convinced it will lessen England and Wales and NI. So it is my duty to do all I can to ensure that Scotland does not casually depart the UK, without being fully aware of all consequences of that decision.
3. To that end I am setting up a Royal Commission, with a wide-ranging remit. It will look at all aspects of what independence would entail. It would provide a blue-print to be followed in the event of a vote for independence - so there are no surprises. If you vote for independence, you will know what that means. On currency, on head of state, on jobs, on defence, on fishing, on EU membership. And on Scotland's relationship with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
4. [x] will be appointed Chairman. Of the 5 other members, 2 will be appointed by the First Minister of Scotland, the other 3 by the Chairman. The Commission will report back by the end of 2023.
5. There will be no second referendum sanctioned until the Commission has reported - and that report has been reviewed by Parliament. However, when there is an approved framework for how independence would be implemented, the Scottish people will be given a further opportunity to consider their status in the Union. I do not realistically envisage that being before 2025.
6. In parallel, I am also setting up a Royal Commission on how the United Kingdom might operate in a federal structure - of greater autonomy for each constituent part, but under the banner of the United Kingdom. This review is overdue, with varying degrees of devolved power having being implemented piece-meal over several decades. [y] will be appointed the Chairman, again to report by the end of 2023.
7. Scotland will have material options for its future. It can still, if it so chooses, vote for full independence. But when it has that vote, it will be on the basis of informed consent - either to leave or to stay in the United Kingdom - and will fully know in advance the consequences of that decision. The other options for greater devolved power within the United Kingdom will also be on the table.
The people of our nation deserve that.
NZ is fewer than 5m people, they should be talking to U.K. about buying the surplus in the summer.
The formal rseferendum document from the SNP in 2014 did exactrly that - offering citizenship after indfependenc e to the Scots overseas.
(I was against it at the time)
Mum gets her jab this week. Do the boffins really think we're not going to have a nice family lunch on her (major) birthday in late March?
The weirder point is those who think we shouldn't do anything of the sort because they want to define our present-day policy solely in opposition to a past they define and caricature by selecting its worst features, totally divorced from the geopolitical reality and values of the time, and are embarrassed by those who don't agree that we should feel nothing but shame about it. They do this in order to make a values-statement about themselves, but through such indulgence they risk the whole world sliding backwards.
The proof of this is how aggressive and personal they get toward those who don't agree. Principled opposition would be able to engage in a more measured, balanced and collegiate way, with a proffered alternative. And there never is one, other than abstinence and self-flagellation.
With a few tweaks, it might be a very good plan for an incoming government in 2024.
However given even Sturgeon has said an independent Scotland would keep the Crown, a change of monarch would not make much difference, devomax would be more significant
Or is this idea actually about putting the Tories back on the front foot following SNP sweeping the board in May?
Fwiw, all of the Scots I know down here would vote Indy, so it's probably not as clear cut as you think.
This and one or two other odd events suggest that the virus can maybe be a bit wilier than we thought.
My dislike of hackneyed phrases prevents me from trotting out the old 'remove all doubt' saw, but by God it's taking heroic restraint.
The thing I don't get about counterfactuals and what sets politicians and party supporters apart is that they believe they will get things right. So I believe that the counterfactual of the Tories dealing with the pandemic badly is actually labour dealing with it badly but in a different way. Rarely do things go badly for one person looking at the same facts and significantly better for another.
A lot of the spin about Saint Jacinda is preposterous nonsense but they believe it and it's led to them viewing vaccines as no big deal.
Pure idiocy. The vaccines are the endgame of this, quarantines, lockdowns etc are stalling mechanisms to get us through to the vaccine. No more than that.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-figures-revealed-majority-5408163
Only just joined but have wanted to say this for ages:
The absolutely ideal scenario for the Independence negotiation is for SNP Scot Gov to be negotiating with an SNP UK Gov.
That way the Scots get everything they want and nothing they don't want, and can dispense with grudges.
Everyone wins.
Good morning everyone.
Saddening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck
The culture of fear really does turn people doesn't it...
The qualifier should be "does this person qualify for Scottish citizenship in an independent nation" if the answer is yes then they should get a vote on such a hugely important matter.
All of my European friends who have been here for long enough are taking up their citizenship rights, I don't see why people who are long term residents in Scotland wouldn't also do the same in an independent Scotland.
I happen to think people probably will celebrate such events in late march now their elder loved ones will have been vaccinated, but you're pushing me to condemn it by taking an equally judgemental viewpoint in condemning others, with less self awareness.
I have to go and do some family admin now, but this was obviously done very differently in 2014 and it would be interesting to know exactly why, apart from it simply being the matter of choosing between the two available elevtoral rolls in Scotland - the one used for Westminster and the one used for local gmt/referenda by law.
Either that or Cummings....
I'd try not to see the idea of a Commission as being a party political outcome, but the SNP will see it as that because to date they have got by with fudging the issues that in practice will be the horrible complexities. Personally, if the Scots want to go independent, so be it - but they deserve to know what that would mean. If there is one lesson to learn from Brexit, it is work out the complexities involved in a referendum result in advance, to allow informed consent.
Net in favour:
18-24: +15
65+ -8
New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick, the only bilingual province, is about 33 % Francophone.
They were horrified that Quebec might secede.