Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "RealLifeLore"
channel.
-
12
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Source for your 1998 poll claim? I’m not saying you’re making it up, but I’ve had a quick look and can’t find. I’ve been watching closely the Indy movement since long before that time and I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that if that result happened, it was an outlier, since support was way lower than that normally at that time. As my source, I cite an article by Prof L Paterson (Will support for independence go away) from Sept 23 that concisely charts the very erratic, but nonetheless increasing support for independence since the 1970s, particularly among Scotland’s young and well educated. In the 50s and 60s, it could be fair to say the SNP celebrated holding a deposit. To include myself as a (humble) source, I’ve been interested in Scottish politics through that time and I can assure you support for independence has grown hugely (but not consistently) since I’ve been watching it.
Of course that doesn’t mean it will continue to grow, indeed it could retreat, but if it did it would have to reverse a clear historical trend of erratic growth.
Currently it sits around 45%, which itself is around 50% higher than it was shortly before the 2014 referendum. The Indy movement is confident enough a new campaign and referendum will succeed that it is pressing for indyref2. The UK is blocking that, whether through fear (as I believe) or arrogance, desperation, cynicism or malice, I’ll leave to you. But to me one thing is clear, it’s definitely not from principle. What “principle” could there be in deliberately preventing us from a democratic choice?
However, let me finish by turning your tables and ask you to consider the position were it in reverse. The English people are extremely unlikely to ever be in the position the Scots are now, since they never not get what they want, but let’s imagine an English independence party is as successful as the SNP has been in Scotland. Who would stop them just leaving the UK union? Who would they need to “ask permission” from? Who would say they have no such right?
Because, in your wonderfully democratic “United” Kingdom, there is only one nation that can leave whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. The rest of us can’t.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewclark8630 For me, it’s even more personal. I live here. I truly believe, once independent, Scotland will start becoming a country it will never become while being ruled by Westminster. Not massively different perhaps, but I believe significantly so in many respects. But in any case, it will be the Scotland we want. For one thing, it’s highly unlikely we’ll have Scottish Tory governments, we simply don’t like Tories that much, for another, we’ll rejoin our European family in the EU.
I have absolutely nothing against the other peoples of the UK, but I will leave the awful political union of the UK without a backward glance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewclark8630 It is not voluntary. The Scottish government, as democratically mandated by the Scottish people, requested a Section 30 to facilitate Indyref2, this was refused. Given it has also been decided by the UK Supreme Court that we cannot run our own referendum without one, this means there is no legally agreed route for Scots to make another choice as to whether we stay in the UK union. Reminder - nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement facilitating Indyref1 prevented us having another referendum in the future. So you are wrong, given Westminster has blocked any legal means for us to leave, the UK union is therefore involuntary.
So I ask you, do you consider it fair that only one of the UK nations can leave the union, for whatever reason it likes and whenever it likes. The rest of us cannot. Fair or not, Andrew?
As for your asking what Westminster is doing to anger us - well, plenty actually, in fact I’d say pretty much every decision it makes these days. But that’s not the point. We don’t want run better from Westminster, we want to run ourselves. I’m not concerned with your examples, I’m concerned with sovereignty, and Scotland’s lack of it. Whether we want to fund the oil industry or a hate speech law - should be our concern and ours alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pizza23333 Source for your 1998 poll claim? I’m not saying you’re making it up, but I’ve had a quick look and can’t find. I’ve been watching closely the Indy movement since long before that time and I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that if that result happened, it was an outlier, since support was way lower than that normally at that time. As my source, I cite an article by Prof L Paterson (Will support for independence go away) from Sept 23 that concisely charts the very erratic, but nonetheless increasing support for independence since the 1970s, particularly among Scotland’s young and well educated. In the 50s and 60s, it could be fair to say the SNP celebrated holding a deposit. To include myself as a (humble) source, I’ve been interested in Scottish politics through that time and I can assure you support for independence has grown hugely (but not consistently) since I’ve been watching it.
Of course that doesn’t mean it will continue to grow, indeed it could retreat, but if it did it would have to reverse a clear historical trend of erratic growth.
Currently it sits around 45%, which itself is around 50% higher than it was shortly before the 2014 referendum. The Indy movement is confident enough a new campaign and referendum will succeed that it is pressing for indyref2. The UK is blocking that, whether through fear (as I believe) or arrogance, desperation, cynicism or malice, I’ll leave to you. But to me one thing is clear, it’s definitely not from principle. What “principle” could there be in deliberately preventing us from a democratic choice?
However, let me finish by turning your tables and ask you to consider the position were it in reverse. The English people are extremely unlikely to ever be in the position the Scots are now, since they never not get what they want, but let’s imagine an English independence party is as successful as the SNP has been in Scotland. Who would stop them just leaving the UK union? Who would they need to “ask permission” from? Who would say they have no such right?
Because, in your wonderfully democratic “United” Kingdom, there is only one nation that can leave whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. The rest of us can’t.
1
-
1
-
@Pizza23333 Source for your 1998 poll claim? I’m not saying you’re making it up, but I’ve had a quick look and can’t find. I’ve been watching closely the Indy movement since long before that time and I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that if that result happened, it was an outlier, since support was way lower than that normally at that time. As my source, I cite an article by Prof L Paterson (Will support for independence go away) from Sept 23 that concisely charts the very erratic, but nonetheless increasing support for independence since the 1970s, particularly among Scotland’s young and well educated. In the 50s and 60s, it could be fair to say the SNP celebrated holding a deposit. To include myself as a (humble) source, I’ve been interested in Scottish politics through that time and I can assure you support for independence has grown hugely (but not consistently) since I’ve been watching it.
Of course that doesn’t mean it will continue to grow, indeed it could retreat, but if it did it would have to reverse a clear historical trend of erratic growth.
Currently it sits around 45%, which itself is around 50% higher than it was shortly before the 2014 referendum. The Indy movement is confident enough a new campaign and referendum will succeed that it is pressing for indyref2. The UK is blocking that, whether through fear (as I believe) or arrogance, desperation, cynicism or malice, I’ll leave to you. But to me one thing is clear, it’s definitely not from principle. What “principle” could there be in deliberately preventing us from a democratic choice?
However, let me finish by turning your tables and ask you to consider the position were it in reverse. The English people are extremely unlikely to ever be in the position the Scots are now, since they never not get what they want, but let’s imagine an English independence party is as successful as the SNP has been in Scotland. Who would stop them just leaving the UK union? Who would they need to “ask permission” from? Who would say they have no such right?
Because, in your wonderfully democratic “United” Kingdom, there is only one nation that can leave whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. The rest of us can’t
1
-
@Pizza23333 Firstly, the SNP is not the independence movement (and Sturgeon certainly isn’t) it is a political party, which is nowadays under pressure from smaller Indy parties that also have their own definitions and positions.
There is no reason to separate the reasons you cite. Brexit is a justification for Indyref2, a consistent majority support for Indy is also a justification, they aren’t mutually exclusive. As a political party they have the right to determine their own justifications for their positions, political parties do it all the time. The Scottish people have the right to agree with them or not.
As for changing an election to a de facto referendum, this was aimed at the next Scottish elections, not UK. Labour will have a much harder challenge overturning SNP seats then. Because, let’s face it, Westminster ignores SNP MPs.
And why did the SNP turn to this tactic? Well, because of the Westminster veto against Scottish democracy of course.
1
-
@Pizza23333 The “whole point” is that the SNP and the other Indy parties believe Indy to be the best path for Scotland. If you believe in something like that, you don’t just drop it at the first sign of an electoral dip. Perhaps you’re a Labour supporter and don’t understand that. Back when Labour had both principles (a long time ago now) and a spine they were the same. They had to build up support too, everyone promoting new ideas does and in politics support is always volatile. I really hope you unionists do ascribe any Labour resurgence in Scotland down to the demise of Indy. Be my guest.
The SNP have maintained their belief in Indy for many decades beginning when they were lucky to get any votes at all. In the 50s their support was virtually non existent, in the 60s it began to rise and it has continued to rise, in a very non linear way, ever since. Even if the SNP support drops dramatically, they will continue to believe in Indy’ as will I.
You unionists like to think there’s some mysterious threshold where Indy support cannot or will not pass. Good, maintain that nonsense too.
I’m sure the Tories will still believe their tripe will be the best path for UK even after they get a drubbing at the next GE. In fact they’d disappoint me if they didn’t. People like the Labour leadership, on the other hand, have views that bend with the wind, but Indy isn’t like that. Either you want Scotland to control its own future and be able to create the Scotland we want, or you prefer to leave that with the likes of Bojo, Truss or Sir Keir. You seriously think that goes away?
Political parties *all* set out their stalls according to what they believe will get them the most support. I hope the Indy parties continue to do so too. If a de facto referendum will get us over the line, great! If instead some other tactic will, adopt it! No one will force any voter to vote for us.
As for the UK/Scottish de facto pledge, I took my info from the SNP site directly. You can check if you like. I will say it’s ambiguous about the UK GE, but not the Scottish.
Finally,mp you are wrong about Westminster not having a veto on Scottish democracy. They 100% do, and are exercising it as we write. The UK govt has blocked any legally accepted means for us to decide whether we can choose our future. Those “rules” you mention are yours, not ours. The Scottish govt requested a section 30, and was blocked, it then proposed running an advisory one of its own, also blocked by the Uk Supreme Court. If that isn’t an effective veto, tell me what is.
Anyway, I note you forgot my question about the fairness of only the English being able to leave the union if they choose. Would you care to comment?
1
-
@Pizza23333 Do you know what? You could be right.
I can’t predict the future, and it could be that the present travails the SNP and Indy movement are facing are *not* just a temporary setback on a road that has featured big highs and big lows for the Indy cause. Again you could be right that Scots have some kind of “natural barrier” for Indy support that will make Indy forever a minority position. I can’t dismiss that possibility.
I’m not sure whether you believe indy will, from here, diminish to the point of insignificance, or perhaps hang around, strong but not strong enough “forever the bridesmaid, never the bride” (what a nightmare scenario for both of us that would be).
But… on the other hand, why should I dismiss a clear long term trend that goes back at least 50 years of a (definitely) erratic, but nonetheless overall consistent, *increase* in Indy support? In the 1980s, SNP support crashed, so badly it had many, including myself, wondering if that sealed the fate of the Indy movement. What *did* happen? Take the course of support since the 1950s, and ask any statistician to iron out the peaks and troughs and give you a trend over the period. That trend will be up.
Indy hadn’t peaked in the 70s, any more than we should believe it has peaked now. The Indy movement recovered in the 80s and support increased to the point of coming reasonably close to winning Indyref1. Unlike you, I cannot “unsee” this long term trend any more than I can see the future. You see the present as clear evidence we have now reached this “Indy barrier” against which the movement will forever crash its waves in vain. I see no reason to believe that and suggest it is only blind optimism on your part to do so.
Getting back rather to concrete situations, your attempt to dispute my contention that England could leave the union as it chooses is simply wrong.
An English Indy movement would *not* have to have lost a referendum. In fact it wouldn’t have to have a referendum at all. It also wouldn’t have to have been at a majority of MPs point repeatedly, as you suggest, it can leave upon first achieving a majority. It may *choose to* run a referendum but there would be nothing stopping it simply enacting English UDI. The commitment to a referendum by the SNP (was) a voluntary one, at least until the movement hit the Westminster blockade forcing it to consider alternative paths for Scottish democracy to work.
If an ENP got same number of MPs that the SNP has in Scotland (and especially had in 2015) nothing could stop it doing as it pleases, since that would represent a majority of Westminster MPs which would in turn mean them *being* the UK govt that would ratify the UDI. The SNP must ask the unionist UKG for permission, the ENP would be asking themselves. Incidentally, even if they didn’t get as much support as the SNP, given they could count on support from both the SNP and Plaid Cymru, they could still enact even in a minority.
Personally I feel an ENP would (probably) decide to run a referendum, and if so it’s possible they could lose, but I find this implausible. We are always up against the whole British state and unionist media, an EMP would be in a vary different, more positive, environment. In any case, even if that happened, and English indy was rejected, they could instead pass legislation making an English Parliament and making it quasi independent, leaving only some rump powers with a, by that time, sidelined and neutered Westminster. Another alternative would be to end the blockade against Scottish democracy and instead *encourage* it. Since our leaving would also achieve their ends. Nothing would stop them doing these things. So everywhere, England has options Scotland does not.
This is of course utter speculation, since England has no need of a Parliament. Your couple of exceptions to the “England gets what it wants” rule only proves the rule. My suppositions aren’t meant to prove this *will* happen, but rather it *could*
Scotland is not of course the same, we simply don’t have the same decision making powers and never will while imprisoned in the union. The union is fundamentally and inherently unequal. And unlike your “this far and no further” attitude to Indy support, that’s not a value judgement, it’s stone cold fact.
1
-
@Pizza23333 You can believe Indy has “topped out” or whatever all you like. I see no reason to believe that, and I have history on my side, but if you prefer to - knock yourself out.
Your analysis of what would happen if an English Indy party (EIP) had the same results as the SNP in Scotland is full of errors.
Firstly, there is no mandate on any Indy party (existing or fictional) requiring a referendum to be held as part of a secession. The SNP have alway said they *want* one (until the Westminster blockade of Scottish democracy prevented this) but there is nothing that says this is necessary. This would’ve applied to an EIP too, meaning at the time of their first Westminster majority, they could’ve chosen not to hold one and simply declared UDI.
So - they would *not* have to have held a referendum, far less lost one.
Secondly, if they achieved the same (or anything like the same) level of support in England that the SNP did in Scotland, they would have a Westminster majority, so your talk of a “minority position” is wrong. Actually, given they could rely on support from the SNP and Plaid they could even win without having a majority in England.
So - they would not have “the same place to ask” since, as should be very clear, they would *be* the place to ask. The SNP has to ask the unionist UK govt, an EIP under the same circumstances, would *be* the UK govt. I’m really puzzled you claim not to realise that. If you are indeed as confused about British politics as that, I’m not surprised you’ve come up with the notions you have.
Lastly, even if you weren’t wrong (which isn’t possible, but let’s just imagine) and the EIP led UK Govt refuses its own request to UDI, other options available to it in that case would be;
1. Lifting the Westminster blockade on Scottish independence. Which could create a parliamentary crisis that could propel the dissolution of the union.
2. Create an English parliament and assign to it such a level of powers as to render UK a rule neutered and useless. Which would probably have the same effect as (1).
This is all total speculation of course, the English have no need of sovereignty as they have de facto sovereignty via Westminster. I’m only citing them to prove you’re very wrong in your laying out of an outcome reversal between the SNP and EIP.
Because, as I suspect you actually know. My original comment stands - only England can leave the UK union if it likes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1