Utopia Talk / Politics / And so it begins (Dissolution UK)

jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 09:59:26 Nicola Sturgeon has called for the Scottish parliament to be given the permanent powers to hold subsequent referendums on independence from the UK. Describing the SNP’s success in last week’s general election as an “unarguable mandate by any normal standard of democracy”, Scotland’s first minister confirmed on Thursday morning that she had formally written to Boris Johnson to request the powers to legally stage another referendum under section 30 of the 1998 Scotland Act. Alongside this, the SNP leader published a 38-page document which also sets out draft amendments to the statute which would devolve the right to hold votes on leaving the UK to Holyrood. Insisting that she was not advocating for a third independence referendum – “not least because I think when Scotland gets the chance to vote again it will vote for independence” – she refused to rule one out for ever, underlining that no first minister could bind the hands of their successors over the right to self-determination. Entitled Scotland’s Right to Choose, the publication argues that there has been a “material change of circumstance” since the independence referendum of 2014, based on “the prospect of Scotland leaving the EU against its will and what EU exit has revealed about Scotland’s position within the UK”. Launching the document at an event at her official residence of Bute House, in Edinburgh, Sturgeon said she “fully expected to get a flat no” from Westminster initially. “I’m going to stand my ground. I fully expect today we will get the flat no of Westminster opposition but that will not be the end of the matter and Boris Johnson should not be under any illusion that it is.” Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you Read more Johnson will use the Queen’s speech on Thursday to confirm that a second independence referendum next year would be a “damaging distraction”, while setting out investment in the Scottish economy. Describing the Tory strategy as “self-defeating”, Sturgeon insisted that continued refusal to allow the Scottish people their right to choose would only boost support for independence. She added: “I am not simply firing off a letter to Boris Johnson, I am publishing a detailed and considered case.” She said that when she spoke to Johnson immediately after the election results he had committed to engaging seriously with the proposals. Since securing 47 out of Scotland’s 59 Westminster seats with an increased vote share of 45% last Thursday, Sturgeon has described the general election as a “watershed moment” and declared that Scotland cannot be “imprisoned in the UK against its will”. But, despite Westminster’s chaotic handling of Brexit and Johnson’s unpopularity among Scottish voters, the expected long-term boost to support for independence has not materialised, with polls showing support averaging around 48%. On Thursday afternoon a separate bill setting out how referendums in Scotland will be run will reach its final stage at Holyrood. But this framework bill does not set the date or question on the ballot, which have to be specified in further primary legislation. The Electoral Commission confirmed on Monday that the bill had accepted its recommendation of a minimum 10-week campaign period. Added to the required 26-week lead-in period, that would mean a referendum would need nine months from the passing of legislation in Holyrood to polling day, making the chance of holding one in 2020 increasingly unlikely. http://www...ndependence-referendum-powers?
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 19 10:07:06 Tell her to fuck up and ignore any follow-up demands. Pro-independence Scots are like 4% of the British population, and they already got one referendum.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 10:14:06 "“material change of circumstance” since the independence referendum of 2014, based on “the prospect of Scotland leaving the EU against its will and what EU exit has revealed about Scotland’s position within the UK”" Seems a valid point.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 19 10:23:11 It's not. No country on Earth would be able to function if entire regions could hold independence referendums every time the government modified one of its trade agreements. Also, calling it an "independence" referendum is a misnomer, since the desired outcome for its proponents is to subjugate Scotland to EU rule. Its merely swapping one master for another.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 10:39:53 Rugian You have an uneven track record to say the least on muh freedom, state rights and small government and all that jazz. Muh freedom entails being able to choose your master.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 19 10:42:10 Nim, I dont think I've ever been an advocate of subnational units being able to hold independence referendums year after year after year which can pass with a simple majority. If you're going to accuse me of inconsistency, youd better be able to back that up.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 19 10:49:25 IIRC I have in the past advocated for US states being able to secede if a supermajority votes in support. Which, by American standards, is VERY pro-states rights.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 19 11:08:42 It would be unwise to flat out ignore it; but the SNP didn't get a majority of the vote and doesn't look like it works win. There's no way to implement Scottish independence prior to EU exit, so there's a strong case for saying "no, we can't do this now, we shall have to revisit this later in the parliament. If the Tories are wise, they'd look at trying to neuter Scottish independence though a formn of federalism. But they won't because the would mean reviewing the role of Westminster. Rugian: EU membership is more than a trade agreement.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 11:39:08 So, you are only for American sub-national units leaving the unions, but no smaller than that. Just a month ago you were yelling Viva Vox (Catalan). Do I really need to back up a decade of Rugian? The pattern for you supporting or being against emancipation from so called masters runs along 1 dimension, right to left.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 13:21:11 Seb If Scottish nationalists are wise, they will allow 16 year olds, EU and Commonwealth residents to vote. That is simply letting the same people vote in the referendum that vote in the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 13:22:25 Its a question of repriocity. It makes absolutely no sense for English residents to vote, but not EU residents. 16+ because yay their future or something.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 19 18:18:16 Jergul: Residents get the vote in local elections across the UK and that's what the Scottish parliament is. I don't believe many EU countries allow non-citizens to vote in general elections. Incidentally, the right for EU citizens to vote and stand for local election may not exist after brexit as I think it follows from EU law. UK citizens resident in Scotland are the closest proxy for Scottish citizens, there being no such thing as Scottish Nationality in law. Ditto English. You'd very rapidly get into impossible conversations about why English people can be a member of Scottish parliament; what an English and Scottish person is, and how many grand or great grand parents matter; and whether the child of two people born in Scotland but who had their first child in Oxford after they graduated but moved back to Scotland is then Scottish or English. Residency being the basis to vote in dissolving nationality seems odd. Yes, yes I know you are dying for the UK to break up, but you are being rather ghoulish. Realistically, the SNP will demand the vote so Boris refuses, then sit on their hands because they'd lose. They want the issue for now. When they think they'll win, then they'll do their own indicative vote. But that won't be soon. In the mean time, Boris is probably going to track left - too many of his MPs come from areas that need left wing tax and spend. What I haven't figured out yet is what his intention is regarding the future relationship with Europe. There's compelling evidence that is a Canadá dry option; but equally I'm surprised by the reckless no extension promise. He doesn't need to make this, and Cummings knows well it's a bad idea. So part of me wonders if the idea is to repeat the WA and force the Tories and opposition MPs to choose between WTO or something like dynamic alignment; says once again he's done the impossible of getting an FTA done in a year. If he did that, then he minimises economic disruption and can make good on his no checks at the border. Not saying that's a given, but it would be on form with how he dealt with the withdrawal agreement in the end. Kept threatening no deal so everyone went on about that being the threat, then conceded every point to get s deal, and declared victory because his opponents had stupidly allowed failure to be defined as "no deal" rather than any particular features of the deal. So if he did that, Scotland would face the challenge of leaving two unions, for not much discernable benefit.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 20:29:12 Seb I do not want the UK to break up. I want the UK to realize that the only alternative to breaking up is a close alignment with the EU. A Norwegian deal more than a Canadian one. My point was otherwise that Scottish nationalist can win a referendum if they want to. It just depends on who they give the vote to. See Spain for how a referendum plays out without central consent.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 20 09:16:45 Jergul: A case can be made for the opposite: only close alignment would allow Scotland to leave without taking unsustainable economic costs. Scotland rejoining the EU will not magically create new demand in the EU for the products and services that Scotland isn't selling to the the EU now as part of the UK; but as it trades with the UK more than the rest of the EU, Scottish Independence without a common trade deal is like brexit from an economic perspective, but profoundly worse. And that's before you look at the fiscal perspective. Fiddling with the electorate would undermine the effectiveness of a unilateral referendum, which is purely about the political mandate. Winning a referendum widely seen to have been rigged reduces the need for the UK govt to respect it, may lose some people in the middle that you'd seek to gain by saying the will of the people is being thwarted and will greatly anger unionists who may regard the result as illigitimate. You may find it easier to win, but what you win is less useful. The SNP ought to be careful on that point - Brexit being the cautionary tale. In either case the real way to neuter independence is a far stronger federalism than the present devolution. But the Tories are not going to do that because they fundamentally don't like the idea of giving away power.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 20 09:18:45 "See Spain for how a referendum plays out without central consent." Spain is a bit daft in how it handled that. A UK govt would rather just treat it all with a great degree of derision and not requiring a response.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 11:28:22 The real way to galvanize independence is to muck about with the NHS.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 20 13:13:33 Ignore the vote and mock it? Nah, you need to cage leaders for a decade, throw voters down stairs, and shoot them with rubber bullets
Seb Member	Fri Dec 20 13:19:29 Jergul: NHS Scotland is devolved, Westminster can only "muck around" with NHS in England. Though the SNP gets a vote on that and have fucked about in the past, which is why we have EVEL.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 20 13:22:49 Forwyn: I think people generally recall that this did not go down so well in Ireland. Had the UK not reacted so disproportionately to the Easter rising, Ireland would likely be in a federation with the UK now via Home Rule. Granted, the UK govt of the time gemmy they couldn't very well not execute the leaders given they were executing shell shocked "deserters" on the western front at the time; but it was widely recognised as a huge mistake.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 18:39:16 Changing the premise for drug purchases in the UK would count as mucking about seb. You sure have a lot of faith that the talented Boris Johnson will be able to use his accumen to steer the UK though a union crisis. Why do you have that faith?
Seb Member	Sat Dec 21 14:20:19 Jergul: Drug purchases might be an issue - but I'd be blown away if Boris agreed that. He's not an idiot, and he knows very well he's lost the metropolitan middle class elite that was the Tory bedrock, possibly for a generation. He'd have lost this election without winning those Northern traditionally labour seats. He's pursuing a Nixonian strategy. He can't afford to throw them under a bus with NHS cuts, and initial bosses are he will indeed throw cash at the NHS. "You sure have a lot of faith that the talented Boris Johnson will be able to use his accumen to steer the UK though a union crisis." I don't think anything I've said hinges on Boris. I think you are getting slightly ahead of yourself. The fact is the SNP isn't in a position to win a referendum now and even if they could, they'd not be in a position to exit before we exit the EU. The SNP demands are more to stoke support down the line. The primary issue though: the harder brexit goes, the more difficult and costly independence becomes. The worse Boris handles brexit, the not the challenges of Scottish exit from the UK are demonstrated. Equally the softer brexit is, the less rationale for independence. So independence is still an uphill climb for the SNP, not the coast downhill you seem to be imagining. Boris being hated in Scotland is a positive factor for the SNP, but I don't actually think it needs oodles of skill by Boris to navigate.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: