UK Politics: Trumpy Cat Trumpy Cat Where Have You Been?

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

In what will be a surprise to no one, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has decided she will call for a second referendum for Scotttish Independence.

Because apparently 'once in a generation' means 'until we get the result we want'.

To be fair, that's normally what happens. Leading Brexiters admitted that if they'd lost, they'd immediately have gone back to asking for EURef II. But that doesn't stop them from attacking the SNP for doing the same thing in different circumstances.

And there's an undeniable case that the situation has changed: the 'No' campaign leaned heavily on EU arguments last time around, including the very same ones you're quoting below. But since we're now out whatever happens, that does alter the landscape. (There are many indications that the EU would be sympathetic to an independent Scotland's application, by the way. The BBC, not noted independence boosters, discussed this the other day.)

All that said... as I've said before, these are not the circumstances under which the SNP leadership wanted to hold another referendum. But they have little choice. They'd rather have waited for the polls to come round, which they haven't, but their membership are in favour, they all but said they'd do it if the Brexit referendum went the way it actually went, and - minor point perhaps - they appear to genuinely believe Scotland would be better off in the EU.

They have a tougher fight on their hands than they would have wanted, and they understand their chances of losing are high (which will set them back severely) but they have to go for it anyway.

[Chaircat Meow]

51 minutes ago, mormont said:

To be fair, that's normally what happens. Leading Brexiters admitted that if they'd lost, they'd immediately have gone back to asking for EURef II. But that doesn't stop them from attacking the SNP for doing the same thing in different circumstances.

And there's an undeniable case that the situation has changed: the 'No' campaign leaned heavily on EU arguments last time around, including the very same ones you're quoting below. But since we're now out whatever happens, that does alter the landscape. (There are many indications that the EU would be sympathetic to an independent Scotland's application, by the way. The BBC, not noted independence boosters, discussed this the other day.)

All that said... as I've said before, these are not the circumstances under which the SNP leadership wanted to hold another referendum. But they have little choice. They'd rather have waited for the polls to come round, which they haven't, but their membership are in favour, they all but said they'd do it if the Brexit referendum went the way it actually went, and - minor point perhaps - they appear to genuinely believe Scotland would be better off in the EU.

They have a tougher fight on their hands than they would have wanted, and they understand their chances of losing are high (which will set them back severely) but they have to go for it anyway.

Um, I don't think so. Quebec had 15 years between its two failed separation bids. The UK had a 41 year gap between its EEC/EU referendums. As for the Brexiteers they haven't pushed for another referendum on the EU (for obvious reasons). So, why is calling this normal being fair? 

 

 

[mormont]

To be clear: 'that's normally what happens' refers to referendum results not being regarded as the final word by the losing side, not to a second vote being held very soon after the first.

In this case, as I've said, the SNP clearly would have preferred to wait longer before holding a second referendum. In some of the other cases you mention, people would clearly have preferred to have a second referendum sooner, but were unable to make that happen.

But the point I'm making is that anyone who took the 'once in a lifetime' statement literally (and prefers it to later statements noting that a second vote would be held if circumstances changed) is either being naive or partisan, possibly both. In the real world, it's not surprising that the losing side on a referendum doesn't necessarily think 'OK, let's put that aside for the next fifty or sixty years'. Particularly not when it's their raison d'etre.

[Chaircat Meow]

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

But the point I'm making is that anyone who took the 'once in a lifetime' statement literally (and prefers it to later statements noting that a second vote would be held if circumstances changed) is either being naive or partisan, possibly both. In the real world, it's not surprising that the losing side on a referendum doesn't necessarily think 'OK, let's put that aside for the next fifty or sixty years'. Particularly not when it's their raison d'etre.

One does not have to view the referendum as being binding for a lifetime, or a generation, to think that beginning the process for a second one, less than three years after the first, is dishonest and contrary to what was said at the time.

Anyway, we still don't know exactly when this new referendum will be held. The SNP say they want late 2018/early 2019 but London could try and push that back, maybe substantially. The vote could still be years away. It is hard to say who benefits from that timing.

[polishgenius]

Let's be fair though: this isn't happening because the SNP want a new vote less than three years after the first, it's happening because Theresa May is a fucking dingbat who double-dared Sturgeon to call for another one rather than allow Scotland any sort of voice in the Brexit process. So she didn't really have any other option, it was this or let May run roughshod over everything.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

In what will be a surprise to no one, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has decided she will call for a second referendum for Scotttish Independence.

Because apparently 'once in a generation' means 'until we get the result we want'.

not looking forward to more months of divisive bullshit.  The polls have shown little if any increase in support for independence, so this might backfire horribly.

Not to mention, theres no indication from the EU that they would accept an independat Scotland, and no chance we could be grandfathered in.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39255181

"Once in a generation" means once every five years.  If Nicola Sturegon loses the next one, will she demand best out of five?

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Let's be fair though: this isn't happening because the SNP want a new vote less than three years after the first, it's happening because Theresa May is a fucking dingbat who double-dared Sturgeon to call for another one rather than allow Scotland any sort of voice in the Brexit process. So she didn't really have any other option, it was this or let May run roughshod over everything.

No she didn't. May would be a fool to design a Brexit deal around keeping the SNP happy. The SNP will never be happy with the UK's constitutional/economic arrangements.

Sturgeon did box herself into a corner though, and it has been clear for months that she had no real option but to ask for another plebiscite.  

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

"Once in a generation" means once every five years.  If Nicola Sturegon loses the next one, will she demand best out of five?

She's going on Glasgow life expectancy. Even so, she's really taking the deep-fried Mars bar.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

One does not have to view the referendum as being binding for a lifetime, or a generation, to think that beginning the process for a second one, less than three years after the first, is dishonest and contrary to what was said at the time.

You do realise this was the position the SNP set out in their manifesto in the last election?

Quote

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

https://www.snp.org/the_snp_2016_manifesto_explained

Again, the charge of 'dishonesty' is based on a preference for the (older) statement of position over the newer one. But the newer one is hardly a secret, and Scottish voters were well aware of it both when they elected the SNP and when they voted in the EU referendum. It's hard to paint that as 'dishonest'. You could, perhaps, complain that the original statement back in 2013 was 'dishonest', but that would be to suggest that it is taken far more literally and seriously than it's reasonable to suppose, IMO.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anyway, we still don't know exactly when this new referendum will be held. The SNP say they want late 2018/early 2019 but London could try and push that back, maybe substantially. The vote could still be years away. It is hard to say who benefits from that timing.

For that matter, the vote might not ever happen. There are significant hurdles to clear, even in the Scottish Parliament: the Greens are generally assumed to be on board, but you know what they say about assumptions. Then, if the UK Parliament don't agree, we're in uncharted territory. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

[Ser Reptitious]

It probably would have made more sense to hold the Scottish independence referendum after the U.K. EU referendum rather than beforehand, so that Scottish voters could clearly state whether they preferred to stay in the U.K. or (possibly) the EU , but I'm not sure if the Cameron government would have agreed to that.

[The BlackBear]

Well the EU referendum was planned after the General Election which was after the IndyRef.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

You do realise this was the position the SNP set out in their manifesto in the last election?

https://www.snp.org/the_snp_2016_manifesto_explained

Again, the charge of 'dishonesty' is based on a preference for the (older) statement of position over the newer one. But the newer one is hardly a secret, and Scottish voters were well aware of it both when they elected the SNP and when they voted in the EU referendum. It's hard to paint that as 'dishonest'. You could, perhaps, complain that the original statement back in 2013 was 'dishonest', but that would be to suggest that it is taken far more literally and seriously than it's reasonable to suppose, IMO.

If there was any honesty or seriousness in what was said about the referendum being 'once in a generation' and the outcome being 'decisive' then you can't re-run the thing in the next four or five years because you lost.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

For that matter, the vote might not ever happen. There are significant hurdles to clear, even in the Scottish Parliament: the Greens are generally assumed to be on board, but you know what they say about assumptions. Then, if the UK Parliament don't agree, we're in uncharted territory. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

I can't really see the wee man failing to come through for the SNP but there is some speculation going on that May could tell the SNP to win a majority in 2021 for another referendum, thus pushing the vote back to 2022. The calculation would be, of course, that the SNP and Greens would lose enough seats for the 'assumed' pro-Independence majority to disappear.

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

It probably would have made more sense to hold the Scottish independence referendum after the U.K. EU referendum rather than beforehand, so that Scottish voters could clearly state whether they preferred to stay in the U.K. or (possibly) the EU , but I'm not sure if the Cameron government would have agreed to that.

It was nothing to do with Cameron. The fat man was going through with the referendum that the 2011 election result 'entitled' him to. The SNP didn't know they were going to win the 2016 election (actually, they lost their majority - not that it matters that much). So the referendum had to be in the 2011-2016 Parliament which ended before the Brexit vote.

[Werthead]

Pretty sure the SNP made it clear at the time of both the indyref and the 2015 general election that they would ask for a second referendum if they lost but then Britain voted to leave the EU (it was certainly talked about in the media and here as a strong possibility). The timing has thrown them though: the feeling was that Cameron would wait until 2017 before calling the referendum, which would have given them more time.

The SNP is not in the best position. They may be gambling on an economic downturn in the next year to two years (post-Article 50) to bolster their argument. The problem is that, without that, the economic arguments remain doubtful and in many cases worse than in 2014, particularly the collapse in the price of oil. But on the other hand the SNP's mandate is utterly overwhelming.

If the SNP loses a second indyref, does that damage the SNP's longterm viability and allow for - at least - the vague possibility of a Labour or Lib Dem resurgence in Scotland?

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anyway, we still don't know exactly when this new referendum will be held. The SNP say they want late 2018/early 2019 but London could try and push that back, maybe substantially. The vote could still be years away. It is hard to say who benefits from that timing.

May could argue that since the UK Government will have to be spending so much time on Brexit preparations that the referendum couldn't be held until after Brexit, although that would have its risks because if big problems emerged during Brexit itself that could boost the independence argument. If both sides believe in their own arguments about the benefits/costs of leaving the EU then maybe they should both want the referendum to be in late 2019.

It probably would have made more sense to hold the Scottish independence referendum after the U.K. EU referendum rather than beforehand, so that Scottish voters could clearly state whether they preferred to stay in the U.K. or (possibly) the EU , but I'm not sure if the Cameron government would have agreed to that.

If Scotland was to leave the UK and remain in the EU while the remainder of the UK was to leave the EU then clearly the ideal timing (particularly from the Scottish perspective) would have been for those two things to happen simultaneously, but that's definitely not going to happen.

I can't really see the wee man failing to come through for the SNP but there is some speculation going on that May could tell the SNP to win a majority in 2021 for another referendum, thus pushing the vote back to 2022. The calculation would be, of course, that the SNP and Greens would lose enough seats for the 'assumed' pro-Independence majority to disappear.

Maybe we should have a pre-referendum referendum to decide whether to have a referendum?

More seriously, if May did insist on another SNP electoral victory then wouldn't the SNP be able to force an earlier Scottish election (even if it might require the odd sight of a no-confidence vote in their own government)?

I would think assuming that SNP electoral domination of Scottish politics was going to end soon would seem to be a very big assumption. The most recent poll for Holyrood shows the SNP on 46% and none of the other parties with more than 19%.

Interestingly, the same poll did show a 50/50 split on the Independence question, although given that's just one poll it's not that meaningful on its own.

[Chaircat Meow]

4 minutes ago, williamjm said:

May could argue that since the UK Government will have to be spending so much time on Brexit preparations that the referendum couldn't be held until after Brexit, although that would have its risks because if big problems emerged during Brexit itself that could boost the independence argument. If both sides believe in their own arguments about the benefits/costs of leaving the EU then maybe they should both want the referendum to be in late 2019.

The UK side in Scotland doesn't have one position about the benefits/costs of EU membership. I have no real idea how problems with Brexit will play out. In many ways it helps the SNP for the UK to be in the EU, or to have a relatively seamless relationship with it.

9 minutes ago, williamjm said:

Maybe we should have a pre-referendum referendum to decide whether to have a referendum?

More seriously, if May did insist on another SNP electoral victory then wouldn't the SNP be able to force an earlier Scottish election (even if it might require the odd sight of a no-confidence vote in their own government)?

I would think assuming that SNP electoral domination of Scottish politics was going to end soon would seem to be a very big assumption. The most recent poll for Holyrood shows the SNP on 46% and none of the other parties with more than 19%.

Interestingly, the same poll did show a 50/50 split on the Independence question, although given that's just one poll it's not that meaningful on its own.

Possibly. Sturgeon would have to resign and the SNP would refuse to vote in a new FM.

But the SNP electoral domination does not need to end, exactly. They can still have the most MSPs but not be able to get a referendum bill through.

Currently the nats have 63 MSPs, the Greens 6, and the unionist parties 59 (making 129 with presiding officer). So it would not take many SNP or Green losses for separatists to lose their majority in Holyrood.

[williamjm]

28 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The UK side in Scotland doesn't have one position about the benefits/costs of EU membership.

I was thinking of May's government as being one side, given that Scottish Labour aren't going to have much say in when the referendum is.

I have no real idea how problems with Brexit will play out. In many ways it helps the SNP for the UK to be in the EU, or to have a relatively seamless relationship with it.

I'd think an independent Scotland would definitely have wanted the rest of the UK to be in the EU alongside them. The Brexit vote does seem to hurt the SNP's economic case, but the Brexit vote itself suggests that economic predictions aren't necessarily the deciding factor for a lot of voters. 

But the SNP electoral domination does not need to end, exactly. They can still have the most MSPs but not be able to get a referendum bill through.

Currently the nats have 63 MSPs, the Greens 6, and the unionist parties 59 (making 129 with presiding officer). So it would not take many SNP or Green losses for separatists to lose their majority in Holyrood.

That's true, although I'd imagine the SNP would feeling fairly confident about an election campaign fought on their favourite issue.

If the SNP loses a second indyref, does that damage the SNP's longterm viability and allow for - at least - the vague possibility of a Labour or Lib Dem resurgence in Scotland?

I think it would raise some existential questions about the SNP's purpose if they're not able to deliver on independence. I wonder if May might be tempted to put something in the referendum bill turning the 'once in a generation' suggestion into a requirement, so they wouldn't be able to hold another referendum for a couple of decades.

Labour suffered so much damage in the previous referendum campaign that I can't imagine they're looking forward to another one.

[Chaircat Meow]

''That's true, although I'd imagine the SNP would feeling fairly confident about an election campaign fought on their favourite issue.''

Would they? They don't fight elections solely on an independence platform. Anyway, the point is that concerns about SNP governance would creep into the election. They've been in power a while now. If May refuses to allow a referendum before some aspect of the Brexit process is finished (say the art.50 business) and then requires a new Scottish election you've got a Holyrood election in 2020/21 where the SNP/Greens could lose 6 seats or so sinking the whole thing.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, a succesful Scottish independence campaign would surely make British politics more interesting, the campaign itself adds an interesting dynamic element to Brexit negotiations. I can see Sturgeon touring the EU states and talking to Tusk about a speedlane to an EU membership. And if I were in charge of the EU, I would be tempted to give her those assurances. But I have no idea how desirable the EU membership is for the Scottish electorate. Yes, Scotland voted to remain. But it'd be interesting to see how the IndyRef voters voted in the Brexit referendum. There might be quite a few voters who want(ed) neither London, nor Brussels.

[Chaircat Meow]

6 minutes ago, Notone said:

Well, a succesful Scottish independence campaign would surely make British politics more interesting, the campaign itself adds an interesting dynamic element to Brexit negotiations. I can see Sturgeon touring the EU states and talking to Tusk about a speedlane to an EU membership. And if I were in charge of the EU, I would be tempted to give her those assurances. But I have no idea how desirable the EU membership is for the Scottish electorate. Yes, Scotland voted to remain. But it'd be interesting to see how the IndyRef voters voted in the Brexit referendum. There might be quite a few voters who want(ed) neither London, nor Brussels.

There are. Maybe as many as a 1/3 of SNP voters and 1/4 of Green voters. And it seems quite a few of them have changed their minds on independence now. However, they are being countered by former No voters going to the separatist camp because of Brexit. So the Brexit result has not moved the polls very much, despite quite a bit of churn.

 

[Werthead]

The automatic assumption of, "Well, the SNP can't win" is dangerous. Things could shift rapidly in the coming years and even months, and it really wouldn't take much to move Scotland into a pro-EU mood.

For example, there are serious recruitment problems in the NHS and they have baldly said that if they cannot recruit the numbers from Europe they have previously (and, more importantly, if potential recruits in the EU no longer feel welcome in the UK), then the NHS simply cannot cope. It cannot afford to recruit from further afield (it takes three times the money to train and recruit a nurse from South-East Asia, for example, than the EU) and this may be the thing that tips the NHS over the edge into the area where it has to begin reducing services. The argument that Scotland will have better health care if it remains within the EU than as part of the UK would be well-supported and powerfully persuasive to many people.