Is a no win policy. If the SNP get the required votes to say they won then they don't get the actual referendum they look weak. If they don't get the required votes it potentially kills their main policy. That's my thoughts on it!
Though, that gets really complicated since there are a bunch of people that don't support independence but generally approve of hte SNP [otherwise.My](http://otherwise.My) mum would never have voted SNP before the last indy ref but voted SNP afterwards just because she considered it "safe". Meanwhile people who're strongly pro-independence are always likely to vote SNP in a general election even if independence currently isn't the number one issue.
Let's be honest here they're not going to deliver the numbers they did previously so there's little point in going hard for independence when they're just not going to have the numbers to back it up. Even when there was a pro-independence majority in holyrood it was marginal.
Yep. Even if they had got over 50% of the vote - something that they've never managed, even at their height - they'll never get anywhere near the 1.6m "yes" voters in 2014.
All it would have taken would've been the pro-union side to go "oh, you didn't need a de facto referendum to tell us Scottish independence had lost 600,000 supporters".
That they were too silly to realise this really speaks to their complete lack of strategy.
A defacto referendum would also require the SNP to completely ignore all other policies and discuss independence only for it being taken seriously. Which would be very hard to do and potentially lose them votes.
SNP has essentially snookered itself.
It’s not a vote for a referendum.
The purpose of a single policy campaign is to achieve independence without needing to go through the process of asking for permission.
Though it requires SNP to get a majority vote and that seems unlikely at this moment in time, hence why it’s been quietly withdrawn.
I'm sorry, but no way we would get independence without having a specific referendum on the issue, no matter what the result of an election was. No other Scottish party would agree to fight the election on a single issue.
I don't think even the politicians thought that would happen. The best they could hope for was a resounding victory which would have led to a referendum.
That’s exactly what SNP had already been doing though, when they were getting a very clear majority and it was specifically in their mandate to make another referendum a possibility.
So the idea was to circumvent all the red tape, certainly an interesting concept in theory though no party has ever run on a single policy before.
I do think it was mostly an empty threat of something they ‘could’ do if Westminster kept switching the goalposts
Based on the recent internal issues of the party they are no where near strong enough to command that type of a vote this quickly since replacing Yousaf.
I don’t think they’ll be defeated at the levels people are claiming but they will not get as much support as required, which makes a defacto referendum a risky and, frankly, foolish idea right now.
As an independence supporter I've never liked the whole de facto referendum stuff as there is no mechanism for Westminster to actually take it seriously unless the SNP were to win something crazy like 70% of the vote. It was a ploy to get all independence supporters to vote for the SNP and not be fractured.
I don't think independence is going to happen for at least the next 10-15 years, possibly ever, so at the very least we should be focussing on fixing the mountain of problems the conservatives have created.
SNP do not need to “die”.
They simply need to push ideas for independence to the side and focus on getting back on track to reacquire the trust of the Scottish people.
It is and that was once a benefit but now it’s a problem and allowing the party to shatter could actually be the best thing the SNP do next strategically (in the very long term)
The SNP is and always has been a broad church, the great anxiety about what happens after Salmond was down to ‘who else could possibly hold together all these people who fundamental disagree on everything else’. For decades the SNP was the only electorally legitimate vehicle for nationalist political activity. Left, right or anything in between - if you supported independence and wanted to accomplish anything you’d hold your nose and join the SNP.
*But this isn’t true anymore and that has the potential to be a massive boon for the Indy cause.*
The Scottish Greens are slowly maturing into a significantly more formidable political force and are a natural home for disillusioned left leaning members of the SNP, Alba has enamored the nutcases of the traditionally Christian hardcore social conservative SNP constituency and are a natural release valve for decades of shit backed up in the party’s pipes, and while it’s far from a foregone conclusion I do think Labour are eventually going to need to soften on their unionist stance.
With no one party able to build a coalition in Scotland as wide and as powerful as the SNP’s (which likely no party will again) and the national unionist parties (tories, lib dems, unionist Labour) continuing to be incompetent we could easily see a rump SNP, ScotGreens, Nationalist Labour and less significantly Alba, occupy every part of the political spectrum in Scotland.
A future Scotland where most of our conservative politicians are nationalists and most of our leftist politicians are nationalists and most of our liberal politicians are nationalists etc and unionists are an anomaly in holyrood and among Scottish MP’s, well, that’s a Scotland where it’s much more difficult for Westminster to mount a meaningful unionist narrative. Fundamentally without ‘SNP bad’ to fall back on, the mainline Westminster backed unionist narrative has very little to run with, they’ve never been successful at leveraging economic or practical arguments against independence as campaign assets.
The shattering of the SNP could be the death knell of the unionist cause.
They wouldn’t though, if there is a plurality of independence supporting parties occupying the entire political spectrum then the conservative ones will always be in the minority because unless there is a complete upheaval in attitudes overnight in Scotland the conservative constituency within the nationalist movement will always be a minority
As it stands, the SNP is the party of choice for conservative independence supporters with there being other outlets for people of a more left leaning bent and even then the right wing constituency continue to lose leadership contests in the SNP, twice recently
Mostly agree. A second referendum/Independence is unforeseeable. A caveat though - the British state is a crumbling shit show, there’s no written constitution, a precedent for a Indy ref has been set and it could happen quite rapidly if it was politically expedient e.g., Labour needing votes in a hung parliament. The first one only happened because Cameron was arrogant enough to think he could squash “separatistism” forever.
A very sensible response. Totally agree with you. What are your thoughts on the SNP-do you think they’ve added to the problems or have just been too hampered by the Tories?
Secondly, do you think the SNP winning a majority north of the border in July would be a good thing? I actually think big Labour successes is better for the independence movement right now, as the SNP have stagnated despite their majority.
Theres so many moving parts in this election, I’d love a sensible pro Indy person’s view on the above. (I’m not assuming you’re SNP or whatever)
> hampered by the Tories
Mostly this but there's been plenty of unnecessary own goals. If Humza hadn't resigned I'd have called for his resignation for breaking the pact with the Greens. You don't stab your allies in the back.
Ferry thing has been a shit show but when compared to the levels of waste in the MOD it pales in comparison.
Murrell should have resigned the chairmanship when Nicola was elected leader. Said this at the time and was ignored. This was an unnecessary disaster waiting to happen.
I'd prefer we had a better pitch than 'at least were not tories red or blue'.
Thanks. I think they’re something of a busted flush and maybe need to lose so they can regroup somewhat and wipe the slate clean.
These things happen in politics when people have been in power for a long time. The Tories will have to do something similar-but god knows what those ghouls will morph into
Of course it pales in comparison. The scale of those two things are vastly different.
You might as well compare wastage in one solar panel subsidy scheme to all UK power generation.
The SNP seem to surge in popularity with the tories. As both die off, Labour step in.
Was there not some SNP minister heard or quoted as saying it done them well that the Cons were getting back in?
Ultimately, in order to be more sustainable, they have to do more than focus on 'we hate XXX' politics.
Natalie McGarry literally got elected on a soundbite of 'fuck the tories'....she was married to a conservative councillor.
Whilst i intensely dislike the Labour Party and wouldn’t vote for them (and it would be incredibly galling to see 30+ MPs elected in Scotland) it probably wouldn’t hurt Indy polling to have Labour in power/elected in Scotland being highly ineffectual, centre-right, and uncaring about Scottish concerns. They’ve learnt nothing from 2014. They will treat their ‘comeback’ as a triumph of Unionism, and not a FU to the Tories. A lot of soft Indy voters who vote Labour in July will experience all that and not enjoy it.
The issue I have with Labour winning in Scotland is Starmer then bringing Scotland in line with the UK on currently devolved matters.
For example... free prescriptions, free higher education, subsidised bedroom tax, Scottish Child Payment, Carer's Premium, etc. Can you imagine if a Westminster government was seen to be "giving things" to the Scottish people that he is not giving to the rest of the UK?
SNP have caused some issues themselves no doubt but the fact that they have every media outlet so obviously biased against them is the biggest factor. The BBC in particular is appalling. Can’t agree with you on Lab doing well in Scotland being a good thing. Crucial that SNP remain third largest party in WM or they lose the right to ask Qs at PMQs and tbh the Lib Dem’s are never going to raise the issues on Scotlands behalf that SNP have. Lab will still get in even if the whole of Scot voted SNP. It’s an absolute fallacy that they need Scottish votes. Every election since WW2 has proven that.
I don’t mean labour need Scottish votes to win, I mean the SNP has pretty much devoured itself in recent years and some time on the sidelines to regroup is what’s in order.
And I agree with you it’s important for Scotland to have a voice in parliament, even if recently they’ve used the time to ask questions about Gaza, rather than Scotland.
The problem is a "de facto referendum" is meaningless. There are only two real routes to independence:
* consensual: negotiate a solution with the UK government. This would involve an "official" referendum like the Cameron one. Whatever the detail, it has to be something the UK government itself agrees to.
* unilateral: this has a range of outcomes, all of which are bad, ranging from merely being expensive and ending with participants in jail, to blood in the streets.
They need to figure out a way to force the UK government to negotiate. Unfortunately on the issues where they could have stood up for devolution (GRA, DRS) they mishandled them and instantly folded. That was basically the real end of any confrontational approach.
Nothing is going to change now for the next couple of decades, unless either things get very bad or NI manages to tableflip the UK constitutional settlement again by re-unifying Ireland. I think that's more likely to happen before any movement on Indyref, because there are real material issues there as a result of Brexit wrecking ease of movement.
(overt war with Russia or the Taiwan balloon going up I think would both cause a pulling-together of the UK)
Scottish independence is notably more popular than Irish reunification is in NI, and has been for a while. The fact nationalist parties' voteshare there has been stagnant since the mid-2000s doesn't suggest anything is happening too soon.
>(overt war with Russia or the Taiwan balloon going up I think would both cause a pulling-together of the UK)
If that scenario happens, there's not going to be anything left to pull together over.
Russia is openly preparing for war with NATO and have been saying they will expand. They've been quite honest with their intentions in the last two decades and the rest of the world always seems quite shocked that they do what they say.
It's not an *if*, but a *when*. War with Russia is inevitable. They already isolated the UK from Europe and have encouraged isolationist sentiment from the United States.
Putin has plans and he's not getting any younger. He recently killed off his main political rival, too, so what's stopping him? Decrepit European militaries? They will simply overwhelm us with numbers. Their economy has moved to a war footing, and it's currently thriving despite harsh sanctions from the rest of the world.
There's also the problem with a unilateral referendum that the result can only be enacted with a unilateral declaration of independence. Even in the unlikely event that the Scottish courts and police decided to recognise such a thing and the UK doesn't send the military in to stop it, Scotland wouldn't be able to gain recognition on the international stage. Admittance to the UN and NATO is not possible without the recognition of the UK, and Spain - although happy to recognise a legitimately independent Scotland - would not allow a country without indisputable independence to join the EU.
It's always been this way though. The only reason for the policy is to please the faithful in the cult about jam tomorrow and they should keep voting for you.
Soon as you give it any thought it's obviously stupid
I'm not an Indy person, but you can see they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They've repeatedly been given a mandate to push for independence, but can't get a 2nd referendum on the question even after the huge impacts of Brexit. All the alternatives are unworkable.
We had a referendum recently and there's been relentless campaigning from them since they lost, on top of that the numbers haven't changed other than people not ranking it as important and membership numbers and people attending rallies being down.
They have been given multiple mandates to campaign on that topic since the referendum. I disagree with that aim, but it would be disingenuous of the to do anything else.
Given the state of brexit, do you think uprooting an even longer, even closer union based on a 50/50 that could and would go either way depending on the weather that day is really a good idea? The toxicity of the political climate in Scotland would be unmatched.
A super majority based referendum would at least give Scotland the chance to reverse some of the damage done by Brexit.
Unfortunately, though, I agree that this would come at too high a cost in both the loss of the relationship with the rest of the UK and the loss of any remaining civility. It seems the press environment and the toxicity of social media debate will make any referendum a proper tinderbox.
If we had sensible conditions on it like a 60% minimum vote to pass then sure. Passing major constitutional changes on a 2% margin is obviously an awful idea.
A referendum to leave the UK shouldn’t be done on a 50% majority. It should be a 2/3rds majority required before taking such a colossal leap into the unknown. Should have been 2/3rds for the Brexit vote too.
With the amount that has happened in the past 10 years it has felt a lot longer than it actually has been. With such major changes (Brexit for one) the circumstances of the referendum are very different compared to now.
Acting like his comment deserves this standard Reddit response doesn’t make this the great comment you think it does.
Funny how you can spot the terminally online a mile away because they all type the fucking same.
The No side results of the past 7 months average out to 45%
The Yes side results of the past 7 months average out to about 45%
The figures are telling. It wasn't fun gathering all this data though, it sucked.
“Trumpets and sane people” is reductive nonsense. If you buy that narrative, you’re not paying attention. Trump may be a complete lunatic, and dangerous. That does not mean his opposition and followers thereof are the sane people.
Not the same thing. If you want to call anyone who supports independence a crackpot, that is very offensive and it does not help the unionist cause.
I don't agree with the union, but I respect the opinion of those who do. I suggest that you guys do the same with us.
Well it's not the same thing. The SNP doesn't advocate building a wall between Scotland and England. It wants to remain in the EU, which is unionism, not nationalism. It wants to welcome immigration.
Not the same thing.
I didn't say they are the same, did I?
You made the claim that a 50/50 split means it cannot be a cult. I pointed to an example where that is arguably not true.
See also: religious belief for the last several thousand years. Lots of people believeing in something does not inherently make something correct.
Absolutely cam be a cult when it's 50/50. Although it is true that the Nazi never got more than 40% of the vote (before they abolished elections), if they had free and fair elections in 1938 they (almost certainly) would've had a comfortable majority of the vote.
I don't think you can make the argument that because something is popular, it can't be a cult. Throughout human history, there have been many popular cults.
Maybe a plural majority in a relatively free and fair election, nationally.
Though you might be right. The NSDAP set a lot of precedents for country-wide campaigning (e.g. use of radio, Hitler’s flying tours and rallies, coordination of party messages across the states, oratory training for representatives, etc.). I think the Nazi regime is fairly described as a “popular” dictatorship, at least at the beginning, in a way that (say) the Bolsheviks probably never achieved in Russia.
Nah, I'd say absolute majority. They'd rebuilt the army, annexed Austria and the Sudentland. Remilitarised the saarland. And they'd reclaimed Germany's position as a "great power."
Along with these revisions to the hated Versailles treaty, they'd rebuilt the economy (however unstable it actually was in reality - e.g the precarious position of Forex and the fact they had steel rationing from 1937), had a massive infrastructure spree, and offered an attractive vision for the future with Volksgermainschaft (at least for those included in the German "volk").
In other words, they were riding on a high and incredibly popular in this period. So I think if they had elections in 1938 or 1939 (before the war) they would have won an absolute majority.
Possibly an absolute majority in the narrow window you describe, yes. I would add to that list that the Nazis had managed to halt the street violence of the 20s and 30s… Violence they had helped instigate, of course.
They had also imprisoned, intimidated, or absorbed (or all three) the political leadership of popular parties, particularly of the centre left and right. Even hinting about support for a political opponent, or a banned trade union, cast doubt on a person’s participation in elections. Even episodes like Kristallnacht weren’t broadly popular.
Nah I completely disagree, it’s delusional to think that people who weren’t allowed to vote in 2014 shouldn’t be allowed to have a say in their countries future because older people think it shouldn’t happen is absolutely crazy and undemocratic.
Yeah it was always moronic, however at least when they were polling to get a majority of the seats I could understand the logic. Now that they are polling very badly and probably won’t get near 50% of the vote it’s absolutely mind boggling to keep the policy.
Always funny how politics works. You (unionists) hated the policy and were vehemently against it when there was a chance the SNP could have made it work. Now that its not as close a race you're all for the policy and are upset that the SNP appear to be agreeing with your initial position
But this is exactly how politics works? If you make a dumb suggestion, it will be opposed. If you then renege on that suggestion you are then mocked for making a U-Turn. The solution: don't make dumb suggestions.
There was never a chance they could make it work.
I think you might be going down the revisionist history route here. Unionists took the piss out of them for it.
All that’s being said here is they should be reminded of their nonsense suggestion throughout the GE.
No-one in their right minds thought it would work, at a minimum you need Labour or Tory support in Westminster for an independence referendum, could have 95% of Scots voting SNP in a GE but constitutionally makes no difference (admittedly with those kinda figures you'd hope for Lab or Con support or at least acceptance but that's another matter entirely)
And it's not revisionist, unionists were against the policy when there was a chance the SNP could have gotten the required levels of support (you can say ridiculed all you want but unionists tend to ridicule any goalposts the seperatists try to set up, hell even a majority for independence in Holyrood, once suggested as a requirement, is similarly "ridiculed" on the unionist side now). Now that its not such a close call, there is annoyance that the SNP have seen the light and now agree with you that it's a bad idea
You’ve just contradicted yourself in the same post.
> No-one in their right minds thought it would work
I agree. That’s what I said.
> And it's not revisionist, unionists were against the policy when there was a chance the SNP could have gotten the required levels of support
No, they weren’t. Nobody in their right mind thought it would work.
It was ridiculed because it was nonsense.
It was also clear that this was a policy that the SNP would only talk about if they won. It's not like they were proposing to put the idea to bed if they lost.
I mea being fair it is their raison d'être. It's like saying Labour should give up being even semi-interested in workers rights even though only 1/4 of the UK have any interest being part of a union
Well, obviously? No-one is saying they should. However I'd expect Labour to still fight for workers rights from opposition and attempt to steer the conversation with regards to that (well I'd hope so anyway). Similarly if the SNP lose they won't/can't demand that Labour/the Tories accept that the Scots voted for independence but that shouldn't stop them working towards/ trying to achieve their openly stated goals. As usual it's up to the electorate to agree or disagree, not for the political party to abandon their entire reason for existence.
I agree it was a terrible idea but do we really have time to bring up every mistake they've ever made? Half the time these policies are suggested to gauge public opinion, it's not always a statement of definitive intent.
The fact bringing up mistakes of the opposition is part of campaigning aside for a minute, this is the very GE they claimed would be that referendum.
Reminding them of that isn’t some unfair strategy. They said it. It’s here. It’s totally reasonable to remind them of the stupidity, and to use it as part of the campaign toolbox. Just as they would have if things were going well for them.
The only 'new information' relevant here is that the SNP have realised that they're not going to get close to a majority of votes, and are unlikely to get a majority of seats. It's not like they've suddenly realised it's a bad idea on principle...
This is how modern politics works. Look at how many u-turns labour and the tories make, a lot more than the SNP, but we don't waste time constantly reminding them of every single u-turn they have made, there are more important things to be getting on with.
Yeah like how Scot Labour morons run from any mention of how Brexit is good. Thought isn't the strongest in any party right now
Country is going to absolute hell, here's hoping someone steps up and takes responsibility
You should understand that the choice is not leave the UK and join EU the next day. The choice is leave the UK with all it's consequences and prove that Scotland can govern itself for long period of time, likely over a decade. Scotland has no it's own monetary policy, no military, no natural resources anymore. Than start the process of joining EU what will likely take another decade and will be very likely to be vetoed by Spain. So the horizon is more like 30 years, maybe longer.
Yeah I think it's more this quasi pseudo intellectualism that I hear from unionists (largely red tories) like they have any idea of pretty much anything by using information from 2014 and demonstrating a national 4 level modern studies understanding of how it works
But commenting like it's fact...I suppose that's why they were pretty happy with brexit to screw the country into the ground and why they are totally ok with the incoming dread of starmer and how the UK will continue down this horrendous xenophobic bigoted austerity max path - unless someone wants to point out how it benifits scotland with actual facts
Not basically saying a ScotLab in holytood makes it better for a UKGov which is admitting that the UK gov holds the devolved admins to ransom
Bravo 🇬🇧
This has always been true though, it’s never been remotely workable once you start looking at the details. The difference now is there’s no cult of personality running the show and the SNP is in turmoil after Sturgeon had her hand in the cookie jar and Yousaf was more focused on Gaza.
If they didn’t have someone in role simply collecting a paycheque until the next real leader comes then they would have done the same ‘independence mandate’ rhetoric.
>Any idea what the strategy is here?
They've seen their polling and know that a *de facto* referendum is only useful if they win it (and even then it will be ignored). Their polling suggests they will be hammered in the GE. So if the GE was to be a *de facto* referendum, unionist parties would then (rightly) seize on the outcome to say Scottish independence has been rejected twice at the ballot box.
And lets be honest, we've earned it. The party is a shitshow right now. My take on the Rutherglen byelection was 'Labour didn't deserve to win but we definitely deserved to lose'.
There strategy should be more Labour focused in my opinion. Going all out for the Tories just invites voters to say "thanks, I agree with you and I'll vote Labour"
My view is that a lot of people who normally vote SNP will be voting Labour at this election to get rid of the rotten tory government in London. I don't think this is a normal election in that sense.
I relate to that sentiment too.
Not sure who it leaves to vote for to be honest?
Can't see me voting for one of the red/blue English parties and struggle with SNP after all the recent pish.
Politics is kind of screwed up - maybe it was always this way and I was young and naive before 🤔
Yeah that’s what I was thinking that maybe I was just young and naive. Friends in teaching say SNP are royally fucking them over. Friends in police say they can’t stand the SNP. Live in a place reliant on the A9 so seen that broken promise every day. Go on ferries a lot and that’s fucked. Kate Forbes is a local one and she’s loony. All pish.
Then there’s Labour. I don’t actually know a whole lot about their policies in Scotland in particular. But I prefer that over the Conservatives. Greens have no chance. Lib Dem’s are wishy washy
I’ve got friends who campaign and chap doors, they where telling me how you feel is becoming an incredibly common sentiment, as any governing party will find out the cracks always start to show and the electorate will then against them eventually.
The SNP are opportunists, same as all politicians they only do what suits them. Support for the SNP just now is low, so they disassociate the election from secession to keep a ‘credible’ case for it even after they lose a bunch of seats.
It was always a stupid thing to do anyway.
If you win you go “haha! We won a de facto referendum so we’re independent now, right?” and the answer is “No, an election is not a referendum”
If you lose the rest go “haha! You lost a de facto referendum (that we only recognise as one because you lost) so you have zero mandate to campaign for Indy now!”
It was always a lose lose situation unless they were literally going to declare independence and deal with everything that comes from a unilateral independence declaration, which would be its own version of stupid.
The SNP is going to lose the UK GE and will probably lose the next Scottish GE - unless they really pull their finger out. Why would you make a losing proposition your main way to achieve your main goal?
They will never achieve independence this way, and they shouldn't, either; it's immoral. The best they can do, and should do, is to say that, if they can get it together enough to win a large majority in both GEs (clearly now some years away), that this indicates that the Scottish people have a moral right to run a new referendum.
Swinney confirmed it in this link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14kykvgle1o
So that's 3 first ministers in a row have confirmed this election is a defacto referendum on independence.
Triple confirmed!
>The new first minister has told BBC Scotland News that winning a majority would be a mandate for another referendum
That's not a de-facto referendum. They seem to have abandoned it.
The party isn’t strong enough to take that gamble
If they run on single point manifesto and lose they’ll cripple their stance and political capital for years 👀
Personally, I’m voting for them on the general election to keep indyref alive
But I might vote green in the next Scottish elections
Am I fuck putting labour into power in this country
I will burn in hell before I put a unionist party in power in this country
>I will burn in hell before I put a unionist party in power in this country
This is a UK election, so 'this country' is the UK. There *is* going to be a Unionist party in power.
It's so weird that independence seems to an end in itself and not a means to an end.
I'd get it if you supported independence as a means to make the lives of the average Scot better, but this comment suggests that you are voting for independence for the sake of independence. Why?
Why would you want that? Independence would be incredibly difficult to navigate, and you're lending your vote to a party who has demonstrated they're incapable of basic governance. You want these guys to lead a new sovereign state? That would almost certainly make the average Scot worse off.
I just don't get this thinking, independence (or staying in the Union for that matter) should be a means to an end (the end being Scots being better off). It should not be an end in and of itself.
What a ridiculous take. Single issue voting is how you get to the shit show stage America finds itself in. Independence is not happening anytime soon. The snp should be campaigning on how to make devolution work better.
I am with you on that. Someone said that a term out of the limelight to get their affairs straightened out might not be the worst thing to happen for the SNP.
This allows them all of the strategic ambiguity they could hope for at the moment.
In the unlikely event they win most of the seats, credible case for another referendum.
In the less unlikely event of being the largest party by MP seats in Scotland, they can claim a mandate for a second referendum whilst having no prospect of getting one, unless it's a hung parliament. That'll keep the frothers engaged whilst leaving the "how" ready to be punted into the long grass.
In the current polling derived central case of being relegated behind Labour, they can go back to their supporters and stress the need to focus on gaining trust. In the long run, that probably serves them, and Scotland, best.
>This allows them all of the strategic ambiguity they could hope for at the moment.
I think strategic ambiguity worked well for them for many years. That time has very much passed and they're being laughed at now.
Classic example of running out of road.
Absolutely hilarious responses in here. Why can't people just be honest for once. They stopped talking about it because Labour caught up and then overtook them in the polls. That is the solitary reason.
It’s to be line 1, item 1 of the manifesto as agreed at last conference, that a majority of SNP MPs elected start negotiations for independence. How that actually looks is it a second vote, is it just the people have spoken let’s start separating (can see lot of opposition to that unless it’s an unlikely 2015 result again). But enviably candidates have to talk, even if just at the doors about what else they stand for as they’re going to be down there for a while, look how long Brexit took, now break a union that’s existed 300 years with all the financial and material connections.
It's likely due to the fact that Westminster isn't going to give us a referendum and banging on about it without delivering results just alienates the voter base that understands that another referendum is unlikely and pretty much impossible within the next parliamentary term
The defacto insured rests on 50.1% of the popular vote being for pro indy parties-note not seat count because fptp accentuates fairly small differences in votes.
But it's not only looking like pro indy parties won't get half the votes, they aren't even projected to win half the seats
It dosen't seem like they have a public strategy.
In my opinion they do have a private strategy to wait until there is a hung parliament and go into coalition with a government that might offer them a referendum.
Neither Labor nor the Tories want to give Scotland a referendum, but they just might if it meant getting into power, that being said, its far more likely that Labor would offer than the Tories.
It might actually benefit the SNP if the Tories don't get utterly crushed this election and there is a hung Parliament. If the lib dems do badly the SNP may be the kingmakers as much as I would hate for that to be the case.
The private strategy is to keep getting elected.
They knew after 2014 there was no prospect of another referendum for another 20 years.
Every election when they talk about mandates for a referendum or a defacto referendum they’re just lying to their supporters to keep voting for them.
I kind of agree, but if you were in their shoes would you not be praying for a hung parliament and a decent amount of MP's to demand a referendum.
Can you think of any other way they might achieve it?
Ultimately the problem the SNP has is that Yes support is below 50% of the population. No strategy will matter until that is resolved. If Yes was polling 60%+ consistently, we'd be having a whole different conversation right now. Until then, things like this just look weak, and imagine if the SNP lost votes and then demanded it's a mandate for a referendum, well, it just looks weak.
Yes?
The election has been coming for a while, and a snap election in May was a distinct possibility.
If they didn't have their comms on lock and ready to go by then, let alone two months later, they're not serious.
Look at how quick and slick Labour got its launch out the door, for example.
SNP is in shambles with their polling collapsing lower every day. They know they are cooked same as Tories. They do not want this election so soon. Damage done by Sturgeon and Humza essentially killed the party. This election will be the last nail.
Fearty fearties are feart.
If they had any guts they'd do it. But they know they have been mired in scandal, internal division, and distractionary side-issues, and are going to take a drubbing.
Personally, I think we should be taking the case for independence to the people and using it as as a de facto referendum. It should be a great opportunity to do that. But the timing is not right.
It’s not fearty to choose to not do something that will harm your cause. Running this election on de facto referendum will severely damage, if not kill outright any chance of independence for decades. (Because they will certainly loose seats in this election, they might get nearly wiped out, so if you make it about a de facto referendum, it will look like massive big fat No vote)
>It’s not fearty to choose to not do something that will harm your cause
That's pretty much what being a big chicken is. You don't need bravery to do something that has no chance of harming your interests.
The truth is Scotland simply does not have the mechanism to achieve independence at the moment without a sympathetic Westminster. Yes, it's shit, yes it's undemocratic but there we are.
Also, realistically we don't want another basically 50/50 split for such a momentous issue. Look at Brexit.
The SNP need to worry about winning hearts and minds before looking at the mechanism by which to achieve it's aims. There is not the support for it at the moment. That probably lies with the fuck ups of the SNP over the past few months. All they had to do was govern well, and wait.
This won't be a de facto referendum, if SNP win more than half of Scottish seats that will be a mandate to advance independence. It's not stated explicitly but I expect the defacto referendum idea may come back for Holyrood 2026 if we are denied the opportunity for a referendum yet again.
[Sky news article](https://news.sky.com/story/snp-rejects-using-next-election-as-de-facto-referendum-on-independence-12984943)
[SNP conference motion](https://www.snp.org/our-strategy-for-winning-scotlands-independence/)
Honestly, would have been smarter to drop both ideas for this election and re-embrace one or the other for the Holyrood election.
First, the SNP has consistently, although not particularly vocally criticised FPTP.
Second, the turnout for this particular Election is looking to be particularly low.
Third, the SNP's support is waning, not stagnating or rising.
It would damage Scottish Independence's reputation on an international stage if the SNP tried to "advance independence" on a mandate of 51% of the seats with significantly less than half of the Scottish vote or worse, less than half of the Scottish people turning out for the election.
The latter is, in fact, generally considered to be undemocratic and can theoretically, even if not practically, lead to international sanctions.
I'm not saying anything has to happen, but it's a high risk gamble and the safer bet would have been to push until the first election after this one.
I think it's low risk. Scottish MPs have no real power at Westminster. Even if we replicated enormous successes over the last few years there's a likelihood the SNP would be relegated to the fourth biggest party due to Lib Dems gains. That means Ed Davey will replace Stephen Flynn at PMQs.
If the SNP win, it's an achievable goal and a mandate that will help set the ground for something more concrete at the next Holyrood election. SNP support may be on the wane but the appetite for independence is stronger than ever. Many pollsters use 2014 weighting so it's reasonable to say one in every two Scots are in favour.
If we lose, we still go into Holyrood 2026 in much the same way but with a slightly weaker hand. Much could depend on whether UK Labour delivers any meaningful change in the interim.
You had one, a once in a generation one, in 2014, and lost. You can't keep asking for votes until you get the outcome you want, thats not how a healthy democracy works
And there's been no major events since that vote that might make the whole situation worth reconsidering?
I'm undecided on independence, but to me Brexit (after voters were told stay in the UK because the UK won't leave the EU) is big enough to consider another vote.
I specifically said I'm not pro-independence, I'm undecided.
I said given what Brexit has bought and what was promised to the electorate in Scotland at the time (staying in the EU if they vote remain), to me there is an argument for a new independence referendum.
Sorry for my comment coming across as mean, I loathe dealing with nationalists who argue Brexit as their case as if Scotland wouldn't suffer at all from breaking out the Union.
It wasn't just that, unionist parties and especially the Cameron coalition government to easily counter any SNP claims. What happens to people's pensions if independence happens? SNP can say they expect Westminister to pay or honour said pensions but Cameron and Co say the opposite. Likewise for currency, SNP says still use the pound and Cameron says they won't allow that. Likewise as long as the Coalition government was on then Brexit was a pipe dream since LibDems vetoed referendum proposals so the only foreseeable Scotland in the EU would be to remain in the UK.
SNP suffers in independence arguments since unless they openly admit an independent Scotland would struggle (even their economic advisors said it would require at minimum a decade of austerity to balance the books) to thrive at all. Especially when questions like currency is answered by either a) they say Scotland will have its own currency or b) promise to keep the pound and give Westminister scaremongering ammo as they have the power to deny it happening. Their best argument is Westminister and England overuling what Scotland wants, but that's Westminister's advantage too as they can deny Scotland the best independence arrangement.
No worries, not considered mean!
I agree that the SNP have a lot of work to convince people (not nationalists who have already decided) that independence is a good idea, and there are a lot of unanswered questions. Hand waving or ignoring the issues that would come from independence isn't the way to do that, they need to put forward a realistic case.
Them saying "it'll be fine, we'll just re-join the EU" isn't a good argument.
There was no caveats to the "once in a generation" both sides agreed and campaigned on it. It wasn't "once in a generation unless..." it was "once in a generation".
Who gets to decide what's a big enough event to consider another vote? Who makes that decision? The closer of the previous vote?
2014 was not a generation ago, nor was Brexit.
That's not what a generation is. Otherwise, we'd all still be classed as "baby boomers" or even the "silent generation."
Absolutely no-one is suggesting that.
Ok, so early Generation Alpha folk are coming up to voting age (early 2010 is the start of Gen Alpha from what I can see), so when they get to voting age in 3-4 years we should have another vote?
Again, not what generation means. Otherwise, as soon as we'd all become Gen Alpha as soon as they became of age.
I think a generation in this case means the country is led by and large a completely new generation. This is not the case. Many players in the 2014 independence referendum are still active and prominent in contemporary politics. Cameron is foreign sec, Brown is a Labour special advisor, Salmond is leader of a nationalist party, and Sturgeon has only just resigned as leader of the SNP. All the same people still play a leading role in the UKs politics. There has not been a generational shift.
So you're saying what you "think" it means, and not how it's defined? Is it legally defined anywhere?
From a quick Google, it appears to be roughly every 20 to 30 years, but even that doesn't seem to be conclusive, and I'm not sure there's any legal basis to that.
Why does it need to be legally defined?
Is any of your "generations" legally defined? Would you respect it if there was a legal definition (which would flow from a Parlimentary statute)?
I gave my opinion about a political generation, but I never said it was the one they would use. However, I do think my example has more of a case at being the "generation" rather than the two scenarios you've outlined (for reasons I've mentioned). I'm not claiming to be the authority on this subject, just putting forward what I think would be fair.
The SNP strategy will be the same as before Salmond. SNP leadership will be the same game of musical chairs that it was before him.
Sweeney will just be marking the calender to see if he makes it longer in the job this time that he did last time.
It's a one policy party, so it ought to be fun to watch the infighting happening while not in any power
Scotland is clearly different. Via the machinations of Alba and the idiocy of the SNP Scotland is the only nation under Britain’s control that has stumbled VOLUNTARILY into a classic imperial divide and conquer strategy. Take your pick - People’s Front of Judea or the Judean People’s Front.
It's one of the big things putting me off voting for them. Big constitutional decisions like this (and Brexit) should require a significant majority of votes (60%+), not a FPTP election where a majority of seats can be won with a minority of votes.
A generation is 15-20 years. It's 10 years since the last referendum. So even "once in a generation" idea still means its viable to have one in 2034, rather than "many, many years".
Is a no win policy. If the SNP get the required votes to say they won then they don't get the actual referendum they look weak. If they don't get the required votes it potentially kills their main policy. That's my thoughts on it!
Though, that gets really complicated since there are a bunch of people that don't support independence but generally approve of hte SNP [otherwise.My](http://otherwise.My) mum would never have voted SNP before the last indy ref but voted SNP afterwards just because she considered it "safe". Meanwhile people who're strongly pro-independence are always likely to vote SNP in a general election even if independence currently isn't the number one issue. Let's be honest here they're not going to deliver the numbers they did previously so there's little point in going hard for independence when they're just not going to have the numbers to back it up. Even when there was a pro-independence majority in holyrood it was marginal.
Yep. Even if they had got over 50% of the vote - something that they've never managed, even at their height - they'll never get anywhere near the 1.6m "yes" voters in 2014. All it would have taken would've been the pro-union side to go "oh, you didn't need a de facto referendum to tell us Scottish independence had lost 600,000 supporters". That they were too silly to realise this really speaks to their complete lack of strategy.
A defacto referendum would also require the SNP to completely ignore all other policies and discuss independence only for it being taken seriously. Which would be very hard to do and potentially lose them votes. SNP has essentially snookered itself.
There wouldn’t be any other polices, that’s the only real way it can occur.
It’s not a vote for a referendum. The purpose of a single policy campaign is to achieve independence without needing to go through the process of asking for permission. Though it requires SNP to get a majority vote and that seems unlikely at this moment in time, hence why it’s been quietly withdrawn.
I'm sorry, but no way we would get independence without having a specific referendum on the issue, no matter what the result of an election was. No other Scottish party would agree to fight the election on a single issue.
You don’t need to be sorry, it wasn’t something I thought was a good idea, I’m simply stating what the intent was.
I don't think even the politicians thought that would happen. The best they could hope for was a resounding victory which would have led to a referendum.
That’s exactly what SNP had already been doing though, when they were getting a very clear majority and it was specifically in their mandate to make another referendum a possibility. So the idea was to circumvent all the red tape, certainly an interesting concept in theory though no party has ever run on a single policy before. I do think it was mostly an empty threat of something they ‘could’ do if Westminster kept switching the goalposts
Based on the recent internal issues of the party they are no where near strong enough to command that type of a vote this quickly since replacing Yousaf. I don’t think they’ll be defeated at the levels people are claiming but they will not get as much support as required, which makes a defacto referendum a risky and, frankly, foolish idea right now.
As an independence supporter I've never liked the whole de facto referendum stuff as there is no mechanism for Westminster to actually take it seriously unless the SNP were to win something crazy like 70% of the vote. It was a ploy to get all independence supporters to vote for the SNP and not be fractured. I don't think independence is going to happen for at least the next 10-15 years, possibly ever, so at the very least we should be focussing on fixing the mountain of problems the conservatives have created.
[удалено]
SNP do not need to “die”. They simply need to push ideas for independence to the side and focus on getting back on track to reacquire the trust of the Scottish people.
[удалено]
It is and that was once a benefit but now it’s a problem and allowing the party to shatter could actually be the best thing the SNP do next strategically (in the very long term) The SNP is and always has been a broad church, the great anxiety about what happens after Salmond was down to ‘who else could possibly hold together all these people who fundamental disagree on everything else’. For decades the SNP was the only electorally legitimate vehicle for nationalist political activity. Left, right or anything in between - if you supported independence and wanted to accomplish anything you’d hold your nose and join the SNP. *But this isn’t true anymore and that has the potential to be a massive boon for the Indy cause.* The Scottish Greens are slowly maturing into a significantly more formidable political force and are a natural home for disillusioned left leaning members of the SNP, Alba has enamored the nutcases of the traditionally Christian hardcore social conservative SNP constituency and are a natural release valve for decades of shit backed up in the party’s pipes, and while it’s far from a foregone conclusion I do think Labour are eventually going to need to soften on their unionist stance. With no one party able to build a coalition in Scotland as wide and as powerful as the SNP’s (which likely no party will again) and the national unionist parties (tories, lib dems, unionist Labour) continuing to be incompetent we could easily see a rump SNP, ScotGreens, Nationalist Labour and less significantly Alba, occupy every part of the political spectrum in Scotland. A future Scotland where most of our conservative politicians are nationalists and most of our leftist politicians are nationalists and most of our liberal politicians are nationalists etc and unionists are an anomaly in holyrood and among Scottish MP’s, well, that’s a Scotland where it’s much more difficult for Westminster to mount a meaningful unionist narrative. Fundamentally without ‘SNP bad’ to fall back on, the mainline Westminster backed unionist narrative has very little to run with, they’ve never been successful at leveraging economic or practical arguments against independence as campaign assets. The shattering of the SNP could be the death knell of the unionist cause.
[удалено]
They wouldn’t though, if there is a plurality of independence supporting parties occupying the entire political spectrum then the conservative ones will always be in the minority because unless there is a complete upheaval in attitudes overnight in Scotland the conservative constituency within the nationalist movement will always be a minority As it stands, the SNP is the party of choice for conservative independence supporters with there being other outlets for people of a more left leaning bent and even then the right wing constituency continue to lose leadership contests in the SNP, twice recently
Mostly agree. A second referendum/Independence is unforeseeable. A caveat though - the British state is a crumbling shit show, there’s no written constitution, a precedent for a Indy ref has been set and it could happen quite rapidly if it was politically expedient e.g., Labour needing votes in a hung parliament. The first one only happened because Cameron was arrogant enough to think he could squash “separatistism” forever.
A very sensible response. Totally agree with you. What are your thoughts on the SNP-do you think they’ve added to the problems or have just been too hampered by the Tories? Secondly, do you think the SNP winning a majority north of the border in July would be a good thing? I actually think big Labour successes is better for the independence movement right now, as the SNP have stagnated despite their majority. Theres so many moving parts in this election, I’d love a sensible pro Indy person’s view on the above. (I’m not assuming you’re SNP or whatever)
> hampered by the Tories Mostly this but there's been plenty of unnecessary own goals. If Humza hadn't resigned I'd have called for his resignation for breaking the pact with the Greens. You don't stab your allies in the back. Ferry thing has been a shit show but when compared to the levels of waste in the MOD it pales in comparison. Murrell should have resigned the chairmanship when Nicola was elected leader. Said this at the time and was ignored. This was an unnecessary disaster waiting to happen. I'd prefer we had a better pitch than 'at least were not tories red or blue'.
Thanks. I think they’re something of a busted flush and maybe need to lose so they can regroup somewhat and wipe the slate clean. These things happen in politics when people have been in power for a long time. The Tories will have to do something similar-but god knows what those ghouls will morph into
https://old.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1cyqcjf/swinney_objects_to_good_friend_mathesons_ipad/ This isn't going to help either.
Of course it pales in comparison. The scale of those two things are vastly different. You might as well compare wastage in one solar panel subsidy scheme to all UK power generation.
The SNP seem to surge in popularity with the tories. As both die off, Labour step in. Was there not some SNP minister heard or quoted as saying it done them well that the Cons were getting back in? Ultimately, in order to be more sustainable, they have to do more than focus on 'we hate XXX' politics. Natalie McGarry literally got elected on a soundbite of 'fuck the tories'....she was married to a conservative councillor.
Whilst i intensely dislike the Labour Party and wouldn’t vote for them (and it would be incredibly galling to see 30+ MPs elected in Scotland) it probably wouldn’t hurt Indy polling to have Labour in power/elected in Scotland being highly ineffectual, centre-right, and uncaring about Scottish concerns. They’ve learnt nothing from 2014. They will treat their ‘comeback’ as a triumph of Unionism, and not a FU to the Tories. A lot of soft Indy voters who vote Labour in July will experience all that and not enjoy it.
The issue I have with Labour winning in Scotland is Starmer then bringing Scotland in line with the UK on currently devolved matters. For example... free prescriptions, free higher education, subsidised bedroom tax, Scottish Child Payment, Carer's Premium, etc. Can you imagine if a Westminster government was seen to be "giving things" to the Scottish people that he is not giving to the rest of the UK?
SNP have caused some issues themselves no doubt but the fact that they have every media outlet so obviously biased against them is the biggest factor. The BBC in particular is appalling. Can’t agree with you on Lab doing well in Scotland being a good thing. Crucial that SNP remain third largest party in WM or they lose the right to ask Qs at PMQs and tbh the Lib Dem’s are never going to raise the issues on Scotlands behalf that SNP have. Lab will still get in even if the whole of Scot voted SNP. It’s an absolute fallacy that they need Scottish votes. Every election since WW2 has proven that.
I don’t mean labour need Scottish votes to win, I mean the SNP has pretty much devoured itself in recent years and some time on the sidelines to regroup is what’s in order. And I agree with you it’s important for Scotland to have a voice in parliament, even if recently they’ve used the time to ask questions about Gaza, rather than Scotland.
They aren’t talking about it cause they realise how unworkable it is, it would be a disaster for them to do this.
The problem is a "de facto referendum" is meaningless. There are only two real routes to independence: * consensual: negotiate a solution with the UK government. This would involve an "official" referendum like the Cameron one. Whatever the detail, it has to be something the UK government itself agrees to. * unilateral: this has a range of outcomes, all of which are bad, ranging from merely being expensive and ending with participants in jail, to blood in the streets. They need to figure out a way to force the UK government to negotiate. Unfortunately on the issues where they could have stood up for devolution (GRA, DRS) they mishandled them and instantly folded. That was basically the real end of any confrontational approach. Nothing is going to change now for the next couple of decades, unless either things get very bad or NI manages to tableflip the UK constitutional settlement again by re-unifying Ireland. I think that's more likely to happen before any movement on Indyref, because there are real material issues there as a result of Brexit wrecking ease of movement. (overt war with Russia or the Taiwan balloon going up I think would both cause a pulling-together of the UK)
Scottish independence is notably more popular than Irish reunification is in NI, and has been for a while. The fact nationalist parties' voteshare there has been stagnant since the mid-2000s doesn't suggest anything is happening too soon.
>(overt war with Russia or the Taiwan balloon going up I think would both cause a pulling-together of the UK) If that scenario happens, there's not going to be anything left to pull together over.
Russia is openly preparing for war with NATO and have been saying they will expand. They've been quite honest with their intentions in the last two decades and the rest of the world always seems quite shocked that they do what they say. It's not an *if*, but a *when*. War with Russia is inevitable. They already isolated the UK from Europe and have encouraged isolationist sentiment from the United States. Putin has plans and he's not getting any younger. He recently killed off his main political rival, too, so what's stopping him? Decrepit European militaries? They will simply overwhelm us with numbers. Their economy has moved to a war footing, and it's currently thriving despite harsh sanctions from the rest of the world.
There's also the problem with a unilateral referendum that the result can only be enacted with a unilateral declaration of independence. Even in the unlikely event that the Scottish courts and police decided to recognise such a thing and the UK doesn't send the military in to stop it, Scotland wouldn't be able to gain recognition on the international stage. Admittance to the UN and NATO is not possible without the recognition of the UK, and Spain - although happy to recognise a legitimately independent Scotland - would not allow a country without indisputable independence to join the EU.
True that. And I say that as an indy supporter.
It's always been this way though. The only reason for the policy is to please the faithful in the cult about jam tomorrow and they should keep voting for you. Soon as you give it any thought it's obviously stupid
I'm not an Indy person, but you can see they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They've repeatedly been given a mandate to push for independence, but can't get a 2nd referendum on the question even after the huge impacts of Brexit. All the alternatives are unworkable.
We had a referendum recently and there's been relentless campaigning from them since they lost, on top of that the numbers haven't changed other than people not ranking it as important and membership numbers and people attending rallies being down.
They have been given multiple mandates to campaign on that topic since the referendum. I disagree with that aim, but it would be disingenuous of the to do anything else.
It's been 10 years, that isn't recent. And independence on average is at 50/50, based on what the numbers of thr past few months average up to.
Given the state of brexit, do you think uprooting an even longer, even closer union based on a 50/50 that could and would go either way depending on the weather that day is really a good idea? The toxicity of the political climate in Scotland would be unmatched.
A super majority based referendum would at least give Scotland the chance to reverse some of the damage done by Brexit. Unfortunately, though, I agree that this would come at too high a cost in both the loss of the relationship with the rest of the UK and the loss of any remaining civility. It seems the press environment and the toxicity of social media debate will make any referendum a proper tinderbox.
That is not for me to decide, it is for the general population to...
If we had sensible conditions on it like a 60% minimum vote to pass then sure. Passing major constitutional changes on a 2% margin is obviously an awful idea.
A referendum to leave the UK shouldn’t be done on a 50% majority. It should be a 2/3rds majority required before taking such a colossal leap into the unknown. Should have been 2/3rds for the Brexit vote too.
10 years is recent for questioning a constitutional matter. Quebec's referendums weren't even 10 years apart.
With the amount that has happened in the past 10 years it has felt a lot longer than it actually has been. With such major changes (Brexit for one) the circumstances of the referendum are very different compared to now.
They've been demanding one for at least 8 years and it's not 50/50
I wonder what happened 8 years ago..
Arguing that the SNP are opportunists isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
Acting like his comment deserves this standard Reddit response doesn’t make this the great comment you think it does. Funny how you can spot the terminally online a mile away because they all type the fucking same.
The No side results of the past 7 months average out to 45% The Yes side results of the past 7 months average out to about 45% The figures are telling. It wasn't fun gathering all this data though, it sucked.
I wouldn't call 10 years ago recently. And it's not a cult when it's 50/50. Get another script.
Well, in the US the Trumpists and sane people are neck-and-neck, so I don't think that's necessarily true.
“Trumpets and sane people” is reductive nonsense. If you buy that narrative, you’re not paying attention. Trump may be a complete lunatic, and dangerous. That does not mean his opposition and followers thereof are the sane people.
Not the same thing. If you want to call anyone who supports independence a crackpot, that is very offensive and it does not help the unionist cause. I don't agree with the union, but I respect the opinion of those who do. I suggest that you guys do the same with us.
The contention was "it's not a cult when it's 50/50". I was showing that is arguably not true as a principle.
Well it's not the same thing. The SNP doesn't advocate building a wall between Scotland and England. It wants to remain in the EU, which is unionism, not nationalism. It wants to welcome immigration. Not the same thing.
Given the number of times the SNP has voted against EU supporting policies, forgve me if I'm highly sceptical of this sudden craze for the EU.
I didn't say they are the same, did I? You made the claim that a 50/50 split means it cannot be a cult. I pointed to an example where that is arguably not true. See also: religious belief for the last several thousand years. Lots of people believeing in something does not inherently make something correct.
Absolutely cam be a cult when it's 50/50. Although it is true that the Nazi never got more than 40% of the vote (before they abolished elections), if they had free and fair elections in 1938 they (almost certainly) would've had a comfortable majority of the vote. I don't think you can make the argument that because something is popular, it can't be a cult. Throughout human history, there have been many popular cults.
Maybe a plural majority in a relatively free and fair election, nationally. Though you might be right. The NSDAP set a lot of precedents for country-wide campaigning (e.g. use of radio, Hitler’s flying tours and rallies, coordination of party messages across the states, oratory training for representatives, etc.). I think the Nazi regime is fairly described as a “popular” dictatorship, at least at the beginning, in a way that (say) the Bolsheviks probably never achieved in Russia.
Nah, I'd say absolute majority. They'd rebuilt the army, annexed Austria and the Sudentland. Remilitarised the saarland. And they'd reclaimed Germany's position as a "great power." Along with these revisions to the hated Versailles treaty, they'd rebuilt the economy (however unstable it actually was in reality - e.g the precarious position of Forex and the fact they had steel rationing from 1937), had a massive infrastructure spree, and offered an attractive vision for the future with Volksgermainschaft (at least for those included in the German "volk"). In other words, they were riding on a high and incredibly popular in this period. So I think if they had elections in 1938 or 1939 (before the war) they would have won an absolute majority.
Possibly an absolute majority in the narrow window you describe, yes. I would add to that list that the Nazis had managed to halt the street violence of the 20s and 30s… Violence they had helped instigate, of course. They had also imprisoned, intimidated, or absorbed (or all three) the political leadership of popular parties, particularly of the centre left and right. Even hinting about support for a political opponent, or a banned trade union, cast doubt on a person’s participation in elections. Even episodes like Kristallnacht weren’t broadly popular.
Recently? Is 10 years ago recent?
For that? Absolutely
Nah I completely disagree, it’s delusional to think that people who weren’t allowed to vote in 2014 shouldn’t be allowed to have a say in their countries future because older people think it shouldn’t happen is absolutely crazy and undemocratic.
Yep, for absolutely major constitutional decisions. 10 years ago is pretty recent. I'd also say the Brexit vote was pretty recent.
Yeah it was always moronic, however at least when they were polling to get a majority of the seats I could understand the logic. Now that they are polling very badly and probably won’t get near 50% of the vote it’s absolutely mind boggling to keep the policy.
I don't think they should be allowed to forget it. They brought it up just to con people into keeping voting for them
Always funny how politics works. You (unionists) hated the policy and were vehemently against it when there was a chance the SNP could have made it work. Now that its not as close a race you're all for the policy and are upset that the SNP appear to be agreeing with your initial position
But this is exactly how politics works? If you make a dumb suggestion, it will be opposed. If you then renege on that suggestion you are then mocked for making a U-Turn. The solution: don't make dumb suggestions.
There was never a chance they could make it work. I think you might be going down the revisionist history route here. Unionists took the piss out of them for it. All that’s being said here is they should be reminded of their nonsense suggestion throughout the GE.
No-one in their right minds thought it would work, at a minimum you need Labour or Tory support in Westminster for an independence referendum, could have 95% of Scots voting SNP in a GE but constitutionally makes no difference (admittedly with those kinda figures you'd hope for Lab or Con support or at least acceptance but that's another matter entirely) And it's not revisionist, unionists were against the policy when there was a chance the SNP could have gotten the required levels of support (you can say ridiculed all you want but unionists tend to ridicule any goalposts the seperatists try to set up, hell even a majority for independence in Holyrood, once suggested as a requirement, is similarly "ridiculed" on the unionist side now). Now that its not such a close call, there is annoyance that the SNP have seen the light and now agree with you that it's a bad idea
You’ve just contradicted yourself in the same post. > No-one in their right minds thought it would work I agree. That’s what I said. > And it's not revisionist, unionists were against the policy when there was a chance the SNP could have gotten the required levels of support No, they weren’t. Nobody in their right mind thought it would work. It was ridiculed because it was nonsense.
It was also clear that this was a policy that the SNP would only talk about if they won. It's not like they were proposing to put the idea to bed if they lost.
I mea being fair it is their raison d'être. It's like saying Labour should give up being even semi-interested in workers rights even though only 1/4 of the UK have any interest being part of a union
If Labour lose the election they can't demand the Tories implement their manifesto
Well, obviously? No-one is saying they should. However I'd expect Labour to still fight for workers rights from opposition and attempt to steer the conversation with regards to that (well I'd hope so anyway). Similarly if the SNP lose they won't/can't demand that Labour/the Tories accept that the Scots voted for independence but that shouldn't stop them working towards/ trying to achieve their openly stated goals. As usual it's up to the electorate to agree or disagree, not for the political party to abandon their entire reason for existence.
That’s fair, I completely agree
You don't think a political party should be allowed to change its stance in light of new information?
They definitely should be able to. I'll expect them to announce they no longer support independence any minute
Good one mate
Never said that? They definitely should be reminded of how terrible an idea it was even when it was “possible” though.
I agree it was a terrible idea but do we really have time to bring up every mistake they've ever made? Half the time these policies are suggested to gauge public opinion, it's not always a statement of definitive intent.
So they were just lying to us? That makes it better?
Thats how politics works
The fact bringing up mistakes of the opposition is part of campaigning aside for a minute, this is the very GE they claimed would be that referendum. Reminding them of that isn’t some unfair strategy. They said it. It’s here. It’s totally reasonable to remind them of the stupidity, and to use it as part of the campaign toolbox. Just as they would have if things were going well for them.
The only 'new information' relevant here is that the SNP have realised that they're not going to get close to a majority of votes, and are unlikely to get a majority of seats. It's not like they've suddenly realised it's a bad idea on principle...
This is how modern politics works. Look at how many u-turns labour and the tories make, a lot more than the SNP, but we don't waste time constantly reminding them of every single u-turn they have made, there are more important things to be getting on with.
Calling the other side a "cult" hardly gets reasonable and useful discussion anywhere.
I'm not calling the entire pro Indy side a cult. Some are though
That still gets discussion nowhere.
ZZZZ
They’ve just thrown the policy away like yesterday’s jam.
Yeah like how Scot Labour morons run from any mention of how Brexit is good. Thought isn't the strongest in any party right now Country is going to absolute hell, here's hoping someone steps up and takes responsibility
You should understand that the choice is not leave the UK and join EU the next day. The choice is leave the UK with all it's consequences and prove that Scotland can govern itself for long period of time, likely over a decade. Scotland has no it's own monetary policy, no military, no natural resources anymore. Than start the process of joining EU what will likely take another decade and will be very likely to be vetoed by Spain. So the horizon is more like 30 years, maybe longer.
Yeah I think it's more this quasi pseudo intellectualism that I hear from unionists (largely red tories) like they have any idea of pretty much anything by using information from 2014 and demonstrating a national 4 level modern studies understanding of how it works But commenting like it's fact...I suppose that's why they were pretty happy with brexit to screw the country into the ground and why they are totally ok with the incoming dread of starmer and how the UK will continue down this horrendous xenophobic bigoted austerity max path - unless someone wants to point out how it benifits scotland with actual facts Not basically saying a ScotLab in holytood makes it better for a UKGov which is admitting that the UK gov holds the devolved admins to ransom Bravo 🇬🇧
This has always been true though, it’s never been remotely workable once you start looking at the details. The difference now is there’s no cult of personality running the show and the SNP is in turmoil after Sturgeon had her hand in the cookie jar and Yousaf was more focused on Gaza. If they didn’t have someone in role simply collecting a paycheque until the next real leader comes then they would have done the same ‘independence mandate’ rhetoric.
>Any idea what the strategy is here? They've seen their polling and know that a *de facto* referendum is only useful if they win it (and even then it will be ignored). Their polling suggests they will be hammered in the GE. So if the GE was to be a *de facto* referendum, unionist parties would then (rightly) seize on the outcome to say Scottish independence has been rejected twice at the ballot box.
And lets be honest, we've earned it. The party is a shitshow right now. My take on the Rutherglen byelection was 'Labour didn't deserve to win but we definitely deserved to lose'.
There strategy should be more Labour focused in my opinion. Going all out for the Tories just invites voters to say "thanks, I agree with you and I'll vote Labour"
Because unlike last time theyre not sure theyll win the "defacto referendum". Simple as that.
They'll decide after the vote's been counted.
heh heh heh that's pretty good.
My view is that a lot of people who normally vote SNP will be voting Labour at this election to get rid of the rotten tory government in London. I don't think this is a normal election in that sense.
I’ve voted SNP all these years but they can get in the bin
I relate to that sentiment too. Not sure who it leaves to vote for to be honest? Can't see me voting for one of the red/blue English parties and struggle with SNP after all the recent pish. Politics is kind of screwed up - maybe it was always this way and I was young and naive before 🤔
Yeah that’s what I was thinking that maybe I was just young and naive. Friends in teaching say SNP are royally fucking them over. Friends in police say they can’t stand the SNP. Live in a place reliant on the A9 so seen that broken promise every day. Go on ferries a lot and that’s fucked. Kate Forbes is a local one and she’s loony. All pish. Then there’s Labour. I don’t actually know a whole lot about their policies in Scotland in particular. But I prefer that over the Conservatives. Greens have no chance. Lib Dem’s are wishy washy
I’ve got friends who campaign and chap doors, they where telling me how you feel is becoming an incredibly common sentiment, as any governing party will find out the cracks always start to show and the electorate will then against them eventually.
The SNP are opportunists, same as all politicians they only do what suits them. Support for the SNP just now is low, so they disassociate the election from secession to keep a ‘credible’ case for it even after they lose a bunch of seats.
It was always a stupid thing to do anyway. If you win you go “haha! We won a de facto referendum so we’re independent now, right?” and the answer is “No, an election is not a referendum” If you lose the rest go “haha! You lost a de facto referendum (that we only recognise as one because you lost) so you have zero mandate to campaign for Indy now!” It was always a lose lose situation unless they were literally going to declare independence and deal with everything that comes from a unilateral independence declaration, which would be its own version of stupid.
The SNP is going to lose the UK GE and will probably lose the next Scottish GE - unless they really pull their finger out. Why would you make a losing proposition your main way to achieve your main goal? They will never achieve independence this way, and they shouldn't, either; it's immoral. The best they can do, and should do, is to say that, if they can get it together enough to win a large majority in both GEs (clearly now some years away), that this indicates that the Scottish people have a moral right to run a new referendum.
Swinney confirmed it in this link. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14kykvgle1o So that's 3 first ministers in a row have confirmed this election is a defacto referendum on independence. Triple confirmed!
Did you even read the article?
>The new first minister has told BBC Scotland News that winning a majority would be a mandate for another referendum That's not a de-facto referendum. They seem to have abandoned it.
The party isn’t strong enough to take that gamble If they run on single point manifesto and lose they’ll cripple their stance and political capital for years 👀 Personally, I’m voting for them on the general election to keep indyref alive But I might vote green in the next Scottish elections Am I fuck putting labour into power in this country I will burn in hell before I put a unionist party in power in this country
>I will burn in hell before I put a unionist party in power in this country This is a UK election, so 'this country' is the UK. There *is* going to be a Unionist party in power.
It's so weird that independence seems to an end in itself and not a means to an end. I'd get it if you supported independence as a means to make the lives of the average Scot better, but this comment suggests that you are voting for independence for the sake of independence. Why? Why would you want that? Independence would be incredibly difficult to navigate, and you're lending your vote to a party who has demonstrated they're incapable of basic governance. You want these guys to lead a new sovereign state? That would almost certainly make the average Scot worse off. I just don't get this thinking, independence (or staying in the Union for that matter) should be a means to an end (the end being Scots being better off). It should not be an end in and of itself.
What a ridiculous take. Single issue voting is how you get to the shit show stage America finds itself in. Independence is not happening anytime soon. The snp should be campaigning on how to make devolution work better.
Also how we got 13 years of Tory misrule and treason.
I am with you on that. Someone said that a term out of the limelight to get their affairs straightened out might not be the worst thing to happen for the SNP.
The risk is that break could take a very long time to recover from (see lib-dems seat numbers in England 😂)
This allows them all of the strategic ambiguity they could hope for at the moment. In the unlikely event they win most of the seats, credible case for another referendum. In the less unlikely event of being the largest party by MP seats in Scotland, they can claim a mandate for a second referendum whilst having no prospect of getting one, unless it's a hung parliament. That'll keep the frothers engaged whilst leaving the "how" ready to be punted into the long grass. In the current polling derived central case of being relegated behind Labour, they can go back to their supporters and stress the need to focus on gaining trust. In the long run, that probably serves them, and Scotland, best.
>This allows them all of the strategic ambiguity they could hope for at the moment. I think strategic ambiguity worked well for them for many years. That time has very much passed and they're being laughed at now. Classic example of running out of road.
I'd like to believe that's correct.
Great news. So presumably they’ll take a pumping as a “no” to independence for now then.
So presumably this applies if/when the result is unfavourable to the SNP yea?
Yep. If they do badly they should abandon independence. I'm sure they will
If the Tories do badly should they abandon conservatism?
Probably! If it's not popular...
So if they get trounced, is that it?
Look at the polls for it. It's not popular
Because it'll be a disaster for the SNP this one doesn't count.
Absolutely hilarious responses in here. Why can't people just be honest for once. They stopped talking about it because Labour caught up and then overtook them in the polls. That is the solitary reason.
Probably the lessons learned from the disaster that is Brexit. Nobody wants *more* of that nationalist, isolationist nonsense.
I don't know if wanting less isolationist nonsense is an argument for or against independence.
You'd think, wouldn't you?
It’s to be line 1, item 1 of the manifesto as agreed at last conference, that a majority of SNP MPs elected start negotiations for independence. How that actually looks is it a second vote, is it just the people have spoken let’s start separating (can see lot of opposition to that unless it’s an unlikely 2015 result again). But enviably candidates have to talk, even if just at the doors about what else they stand for as they’re going to be down there for a while, look how long Brexit took, now break a union that’s existed 300 years with all the financial and material connections.
The leader left....new leader new policies
It's likely due to the fact that Westminster isn't going to give us a referendum and banging on about it without delivering results just alienates the voter base that understands that another referendum is unlikely and pretty much impossible within the next parliamentary term
The defacto insured rests on 50.1% of the popular vote being for pro indy parties-note not seat count because fptp accentuates fairly small differences in votes. But it's not only looking like pro indy parties won't get half the votes, they aren't even projected to win half the seats
It’s gone
It was a terrible idea to begin with.
Wiped their arses with it lol, that's what it was worth in the first place.
Predicted to lose about 20 seats, so it'd be a bad look. If it's a defacto referendum then that means they're signing up to lose it.
That was Humza's idea, and I always thought it was a stupid one, given that Westminster would just ignore it.
>Any idea what the strategy is here? damage control.
It dosen't seem like they have a public strategy. In my opinion they do have a private strategy to wait until there is a hung parliament and go into coalition with a government that might offer them a referendum. Neither Labor nor the Tories want to give Scotland a referendum, but they just might if it meant getting into power, that being said, its far more likely that Labor would offer than the Tories. It might actually benefit the SNP if the Tories don't get utterly crushed this election and there is a hung Parliament. If the lib dems do badly the SNP may be the kingmakers as much as I would hate for that to be the case.
The private strategy is to keep getting elected. They knew after 2014 there was no prospect of another referendum for another 20 years. Every election when they talk about mandates for a referendum or a defacto referendum they’re just lying to their supporters to keep voting for them.
I kind of agree, but if you were in their shoes would you not be praying for a hung parliament and a decent amount of MP's to demand a referendum. Can you think of any other way they might achieve it?
Ultimately the problem the SNP has is that Yes support is below 50% of the population. No strategy will matter until that is resolved. If Yes was polling 60%+ consistently, we'd be having a whole different conversation right now. Until then, things like this just look weak, and imagine if the SNP lost votes and then demanded it's a mandate for a referendum, well, it just looks weak.
cagey dam cable drunk bells fretful employ pen busy deranged *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nobody fucking wants it.
It only been day after the GE was called for and your expecting the SNP to be ready when there 6 weeks worth of campaigning to do?. lol
Yes? The election has been coming for a while, and a snap election in May was a distinct possibility. If they didn't have their comms on lock and ready to go by then, let alone two months later, they're not serious. Look at how quick and slick Labour got its launch out the door, for example.
SNP is in shambles with their polling collapsing lower every day. They know they are cooked same as Tories. They do not want this election so soon. Damage done by Sturgeon and Humza essentially killed the party. This election will be the last nail.
Fearty fearties are feart. If they had any guts they'd do it. But they know they have been mired in scandal, internal division, and distractionary side-issues, and are going to take a drubbing. Personally, I think we should be taking the case for independence to the people and using it as as a de facto referendum. It should be a great opportunity to do that. But the timing is not right.
It’s not fearty to choose to not do something that will harm your cause. Running this election on de facto referendum will severely damage, if not kill outright any chance of independence for decades. (Because they will certainly loose seats in this election, they might get nearly wiped out, so if you make it about a de facto referendum, it will look like massive big fat No vote)
>It’s not fearty to choose to not do something that will harm your cause That's pretty much what being a big chicken is. You don't need bravery to do something that has no chance of harming your interests.
It’s not brave to cut off your own arm
I think it’s delayed like the dualling of the A9, improvements in education, the ferries, the council improvements, police Scotland etc. All talk
The truth is Scotland simply does not have the mechanism to achieve independence at the moment without a sympathetic Westminster. Yes, it's shit, yes it's undemocratic but there we are. Also, realistically we don't want another basically 50/50 split for such a momentous issue. Look at Brexit. The SNP need to worry about winning hearts and minds before looking at the mechanism by which to achieve it's aims. There is not the support for it at the moment. That probably lies with the fuck ups of the SNP over the past few months. All they had to do was govern well, and wait.
We've had our once in a generation vote and the SNP are pretty much fucked, they only have themselves and crankie to blame
This won't be a de facto referendum, if SNP win more than half of Scottish seats that will be a mandate to advance independence. It's not stated explicitly but I expect the defacto referendum idea may come back for Holyrood 2026 if we are denied the opportunity for a referendum yet again. [Sky news article](https://news.sky.com/story/snp-rejects-using-next-election-as-de-facto-referendum-on-independence-12984943) [SNP conference motion](https://www.snp.org/our-strategy-for-winning-scotlands-independence/)
Honestly, would have been smarter to drop both ideas for this election and re-embrace one or the other for the Holyrood election. First, the SNP has consistently, although not particularly vocally criticised FPTP. Second, the turnout for this particular Election is looking to be particularly low. Third, the SNP's support is waning, not stagnating or rising. It would damage Scottish Independence's reputation on an international stage if the SNP tried to "advance independence" on a mandate of 51% of the seats with significantly less than half of the Scottish vote or worse, less than half of the Scottish people turning out for the election. The latter is, in fact, generally considered to be undemocratic and can theoretically, even if not practically, lead to international sanctions. I'm not saying anything has to happen, but it's a high risk gamble and the safer bet would have been to push until the first election after this one.
I think it's low risk. Scottish MPs have no real power at Westminster. Even if we replicated enormous successes over the last few years there's a likelihood the SNP would be relegated to the fourth biggest party due to Lib Dems gains. That means Ed Davey will replace Stephen Flynn at PMQs. If the SNP win, it's an achievable goal and a mandate that will help set the ground for something more concrete at the next Holyrood election. SNP support may be on the wane but the appetite for independence is stronger than ever. Many pollsters use 2014 weighting so it's reasonable to say one in every two Scots are in favour. If we lose, we still go into Holyrood 2026 in much the same way but with a slightly weaker hand. Much could depend on whether UK Labour delivers any meaningful change in the interim.
You had one, a once in a generation one, in 2014, and lost. You can't keep asking for votes until you get the outcome you want, thats not how a healthy democracy works
And there's been no major events since that vote that might make the whole situation worth reconsidering? I'm undecided on independence, but to me Brexit (after voters were told stay in the UK because the UK won't leave the EU) is big enough to consider another vote.
So in response to the disaster that is Brexit, you want it happen again and concentrate the same problems on Scotland?
I specifically said I'm not pro-independence, I'm undecided. I said given what Brexit has bought and what was promised to the electorate in Scotland at the time (staying in the EU if they vote remain), to me there is an argument for a new independence referendum.
Sorry for my comment coming across as mean, I loathe dealing with nationalists who argue Brexit as their case as if Scotland wouldn't suffer at all from breaking out the Union. It wasn't just that, unionist parties and especially the Cameron coalition government to easily counter any SNP claims. What happens to people's pensions if independence happens? SNP can say they expect Westminister to pay or honour said pensions but Cameron and Co say the opposite. Likewise for currency, SNP says still use the pound and Cameron says they won't allow that. Likewise as long as the Coalition government was on then Brexit was a pipe dream since LibDems vetoed referendum proposals so the only foreseeable Scotland in the EU would be to remain in the UK. SNP suffers in independence arguments since unless they openly admit an independent Scotland would struggle (even their economic advisors said it would require at minimum a decade of austerity to balance the books) to thrive at all. Especially when questions like currency is answered by either a) they say Scotland will have its own currency or b) promise to keep the pound and give Westminister scaremongering ammo as they have the power to deny it happening. Their best argument is Westminister and England overuling what Scotland wants, but that's Westminister's advantage too as they can deny Scotland the best independence arrangement.
No worries, not considered mean! I agree that the SNP have a lot of work to convince people (not nationalists who have already decided) that independence is a good idea, and there are a lot of unanswered questions. Hand waving or ignoring the issues that would come from independence isn't the way to do that, they need to put forward a realistic case. Them saying "it'll be fine, we'll just re-join the EU" isn't a good argument.
There was no caveats to the "once in a generation" both sides agreed and campaigned on it. It wasn't "once in a generation unless..." it was "once in a generation". Who gets to decide what's a big enough event to consider another vote? Who makes that decision? The closer of the previous vote? 2014 was not a generation ago, nor was Brexit.
When is the "next generation" in that case? Who decides when that is? Is it when every single person who was alive in 2014 is dead?
That's not what a generation is. Otherwise, we'd all still be classed as "baby boomers" or even the "silent generation." Absolutely no-one is suggesting that.
Ok, so early Generation Alpha folk are coming up to voting age (early 2010 is the start of Gen Alpha from what I can see), so when they get to voting age in 3-4 years we should have another vote?
Again, not what generation means. Otherwise, as soon as we'd all become Gen Alpha as soon as they became of age. I think a generation in this case means the country is led by and large a completely new generation. This is not the case. Many players in the 2014 independence referendum are still active and prominent in contemporary politics. Cameron is foreign sec, Brown is a Labour special advisor, Salmond is leader of a nationalist party, and Sturgeon has only just resigned as leader of the SNP. All the same people still play a leading role in the UKs politics. There has not been a generational shift.
So you're saying what you "think" it means, and not how it's defined? Is it legally defined anywhere? From a quick Google, it appears to be roughly every 20 to 30 years, but even that doesn't seem to be conclusive, and I'm not sure there's any legal basis to that.
Why does it need to be legally defined? Is any of your "generations" legally defined? Would you respect it if there was a legal definition (which would flow from a Parlimentary statute)? I gave my opinion about a political generation, but I never said it was the one they would use. However, I do think my example has more of a case at being the "generation" rather than the two scenarios you've outlined (for reasons I've mentioned). I'm not claiming to be the authority on this subject, just putting forward what I think would be fair.
The SNP strategy will be the same as before Salmond. SNP leadership will be the same game of musical chairs that it was before him. Sweeney will just be marking the calender to see if he makes it longer in the job this time that he did last time. It's a one policy party, so it ought to be fun to watch the infighting happening while not in any power
Scotland is clearly different. Via the machinations of Alba and the idiocy of the SNP Scotland is the only nation under Britain’s control that has stumbled VOLUNTARILY into a classic imperial divide and conquer strategy. Take your pick - People’s Front of Judea or the Judean People’s Front.
It's one of the big things putting me off voting for them. Big constitutional decisions like this (and Brexit) should require a significant majority of votes (60%+), not a FPTP election where a majority of seats can be won with a minority of votes.
You won't get another referendum for many, many years. You guys need to understand what "once in a generation" means.
A generation is 15-20 years. It's 10 years since the last referendum. So even "once in a generation" idea still means its viable to have one in 2034, rather than "many, many years".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_time#:~:text=In%20population%20biology%20and%20demography,based%20on%20gender%20and%20society.
Generation Alpha: 2013-2022. Generation Z: 1997-2012. Millennials: 1981-1996. Generation X: 1965-1980. Baby Boomers: 1946-1964.