The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Neil, you may find this helpful, as you appear to be unaware that asking different questions in opinion polls results in different answers.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2011/10/24/why-question-wording-matters

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Neil, you may find this helpful, as you appear to be unaware that asking different questions in opinion polls results in different answers.

I know it does.

And as a result of a different question you're now aware that fewer Scots want to leave the UK than you were thinking.

Edited November 21, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I know it does.

And as a result of a different question you're now aware that fewer Scots want to leave the UK than you were thinking.

you're funny.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

you're funny.

so you think the 5% difference that wants to remain part of the UK want indy...?

You've got something different going on tyo 'funny'.  

[LJS]

So, this is interesting...

Do Scots think differently about immigration?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46457341

At first glance, it appears to support Neil's off repeated claim that us Scots are just as opposed to immigration as the rest of the UK. 

You will all appreciate that this is disappointing to me, although it doesn't appear to ask how important the issue is which generally shows that it is a much less important issue for us than it is for the rest of the UK.

The interesting bit is around the views held by supporters of the different political. parties.

SNP supporters are way more in favour of immigration the labour or Tory voters who are even more against it than their equivalents in the rest of the UK.

But we're still the divisive ones, who blame the "others" for everything.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

SNP supporters are way more in favour of immigration the labour or Tory voters ...

(what I say below are of course generalisations. There's always exceptions around these)

As I've said more than a few times, the SNP are Blairism on speed. In case you're missing the point of that, it's not very much of the left despite what is so often claimed about wonderful left wing Scotland.

The 'traditional' left are anti-immigration on the basis of protectionism (hi Jez & Len). The traditional right are anti-immigration on the basis of their traditional bigotry.

And (you've probably forgotten) I've also often said, the rise of the SNP happened when Scotland finally gave up on 70s leftism, started to catch up with the rest of the UK, and replaced it with a little 'L' liberal version of Thatcher's modernism just as much of England did in the times of Blair. (meanwhile, England has started to move beyond that [tho without much sense of direction]).

And all helped along in Scotland because it has just about none of the immigration pressures that exist within England.

It might be said that culturally and socially Scotland is lagging* 15 or 20 years behind the attitudes of London & the south east.

(* just to be clear, similar exists elsewhere in the UK the further away from London a place is. I discovered just how backwards West Devon is compared to London when I moved there 20 years ago, and there's elements of that in Bristol too.)

Edited December 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(what I say below are of course generalisations. There's always exceptions around these)

As I've said more than a few times, the SNP are Blairism on speed.

You shoud love them then !!!

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And (you've probably forgotten) I've also often said, the rise of the SNP happened when Scotland finally gave up on 70s leftism, started to catch up with the rest of the UK, and replaced it with a little 'L' liberal version of Thatcher's modernism just as much of England did in the times of Blair. (meanwhile, England has started to move beyond that [tho without much sense of direction]).

Perhap's the rise of the SNP has more to do with the Labour Party giving up 70's leftism

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And all helped along in Scotland because it has just about none of the immigration pressures that exist within England.

There is no evidence of a correlation between levels of immigration & Opposition to immigration. Indeed, there is some evidence that the opposite is true. 

http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-areas-with-low-immigration-voted-mainly-for-brexit-62138

Its the fear of immigration rather than the experience of it that drives opposition. Except in Scotland. I don't know why this should be. I don't believe we are intrinsically nicer people than anyone else.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It might be said that culturally and socially Scotland is lagging* 15 or 20 years behind the attitudes of London & the south east.

It might be said that the Moon is made of marzipan but without any evidence most folk would just laugh at the idea.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(* just to be clear, similar exists elsewhere in the UK the further away from London a place is. I discovered just how backwards West Devon is compared to London when I moved there 20 years ago, and there's elements of that in Bristol too.)

I'd really like you to explain in what ways exactly Scotland is culturally & socially backwards. 

 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Perhap's the rise of the SNP has more to do with the Labour Party giving up 70's leftism

that would only work if the SNP were that replacement for 70s leftism - which they're not. As I'd just said, they're Blairism on speed.

7 hours ago, LJS said:

There is no evidence of a correlation between levels of immigration & Opposition to immigration. Indeed, there is some evidence that the opposite is true. 

There's shitloads, or do you think the only opposition to immigration is in the places where there's no immigration?  

It's true that the strongest anti-immigration feelings are in places where there's little immigration, but that could be for many different reasons - such as the stark contrast those people get when they visit places where there is a lot of immigration. Even from living in (a very multicultural part of) Bristol, if I occasionally visit London nowadays I notice how much more non-white it is to when I was regularly in London 20+ years ago. People notice changes, particularly the changes that don't evolve with them around their own doorstep.
 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Its the fear of immigration rather than the experience of it that drives opposition. 

It doesn't have to be about fear.  

If I go shopping in central Bristol, there's a decent chance I'll walk into a shop where the staff are speaking non-English to each other (often Spanish). That's a change in what is experienced of life to how it used to be experienced and people might feel that's a change they'd rather not see. If you give them a chance to express an opposition to that change (as the ref gave them), then they might well express it.

And for the bigger picture, the complaint I see from others about immigration is about the effect of the numbers (not a problem you have in Scotland, tho you get extra financial benefit off the back of England having the numbers), and little about "fear".

 

7 hours ago, LJS said:

I'd really like you to explain in what ways exactly Scotland is culturally & socially backwards. 

I said Scotland was "lagging", not "backwards". I said Devon was backwards. Sorry to crush your desire to say that the English are unfairly insulting Scotland.  

As I made clear, not just Scotland.   

It's anywhere towards the periphery. Ideas spread from the cultural centre of those ideas and take time to do so. As a consequence, the parts furthest away lag behind.

It's not the insult you're determined to take it as. Oh well.  

Edited December 8, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

on the basis that the SNP is going to vote against the brexit deal tomorrow, I'm interested to know how @LJS and @Comfy Bean might feel about the precedent it might set for Scottish indy?

As far as I can see, it's the SNP saying to Westminster that the SNP thinks it's OK for Westminster to ignore a referendum result, if Westminster thinks the outcome is somehow bad.

I fully get the reasoning for why the SNP will vote against it tomorrow - but that's not the part I'd like to know your thoughts on. It's the precedent of Westminster rejecting a public vote I'm curious to hear your thoughts about.

(just to be clear there's no agenda in me asking, I'm genuinely curious how you feel about that precedent).

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

on the basis that the SNP is going to vote against the brexit deal tomorrow, I'm interested to know how @LJS and @Comfy Bean might feel about the precedent it might set for Scottish indy?

As far as I can see, it's the SNP saying to Westminster that the SNP thinks it's OK for Westminster to ignore a referendum result, if Westminster thinks the outcome is somehow bad.

I fully get the reasoning for why the SNP will vote against it tomorrow - but that's not the part I'd like to know your thoughts on. It's the precedent of Westminster rejecting a public vote I'm curious to hear your thoughts about.

(just to be clear there's no agenda in me asking, I'm genuinely curious how you feel about that precedent).

When the SNP mp's vote tomorrow, they will not be voting against Brexit. They will be voting against Teresa's deal.

Much is made of labour's problems because of high support for Brexit in its traditional heartlands. The SNP's position is different. Every one of its mp's represent a constituency that voted remain so it has a reasonable mandate to oppose Brexit. 

Despite this, and no doubt for the reasons  listed above, they have concentrated initially on getting special treatment for Scotland to reflect the democratic will of the Scottish electorate... a bit like northern Ireland is getting. 

Failing that it has primarily pushed for a softer Norway style Brexit. 

Whist it has voiced varying degrees of support for a second vote, it has been careful to not appear over eager.

As Treeza has demonstrated that her respect for referendum results is not as unconditional as she would have us believe, I don't doubt there would be attempts to derail any successful Scottish Indy vote.

There is a difference between the elected government of the UK reconsidering a democratic UK wide vote and it binning a vote from one constitutent part of the union.

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

When the SNP mp's vote tomorrow, they will not be voting against Brexit. They will be voting against Teresa's deal.

May's deal is about the only withdrawal deal the EU would be giving to anyone in charge of the UK. 

The length of the transition might be varied, but otherwise it's "stay in the CU and SM until you don't".

(plus the backstop, which Ireland would insist on in all circumstances, because nothing is guaranteed until a new trade deal).

C'mon, the SNP are voting against it because it IS brexit, not because of the terms of the withdrawal.

 

Quote

Much is made of labour's problems because of high support for Brexit in its traditional heartlands. The SNP's position is different. Every one of its mp's represent a constituency that voted remain so it has a reasonable mandate to oppose Brexit. 

as I said: the SNP are voting against it because it IS brexit, not because of the terms of the withdrawal.

But that's not what I was asking about.

 

Quote

I don't doubt there would be attempts to derail any successful Scottish Indy vote.

I'm sure there would be some people who'd vote against it, but that's a different thing to a determined orchestrated attempt to stop block what the public voted for.

 

Quote

There is a difference between the elected government of the UK reconsidering a democratic UK wide vote and it binning a vote from one constitutent part of the union.

PMSL  

Either a public vote means something, or it doesn't. There's no "Scotland gets special respect" rule (and particularly not in your oft-stated opinion of the English regarding Scotland).

Back to what I asked:

Doesn't it concern you that the SNP voting to block brexit "because reasons" gives a green light to Westminster to do the same if Scotland voted for indy?

Edited January 14, 2019 by eFestivals

[LJS]

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

May's deal is about the only withdrawal deal the EU would be giving to anyone in charge of the UK. 

if you insist on leaving the SM & the CU then I guess you are right. 

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The length of the transition might be varied, but otherwise it's "stay in the CU and SM until you don't".

May's deal commits the UK in principal to leaving both.

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(plus the backstop, which Ireland would insist on in all circumstances, because nothing is guaranteed until a new trade deal).

C'mon, the SNP are voting against it because it IS brexit, not because of the terms of the withdrawal.

Unfortunately, as we have long established, i don't have your mind reading powers. However they certainly do oppose the terms of the withdrawal and could not realistically vote for such a deal.

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

I'm sure there would be some people who'd vote against it, but that's a different thing to a determined orchestrated attempt to stop block what the public voted for.

Your point is? There are at least 3 entirely different reasons why MP's are voting against May's deal. I would suggest the majority do not fit your description above.

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

PMSL  

Either a public vote means something, or it doesn't. There's no "Scotland gets special respect" rule (and particularly not in your oft-stated opinion of the English regarding Scotland).

But Northern Ireland does? And Gibraltar does? No, silly me, of course Scotland doesn't. Of course it didn't help that the Tories totally ignored the Scottish Government's proposals. And the SNP has respected the referendum result. It has concentrated on achieving the softest possible Brexit rather than opposing Brexit completely

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Back to what I asked:

Doesn't it concern you that the SNP voting to block brexit "because reasons" gives a green light to Westminster to do the same if Scotland voted for indy?

Of course it concerns me but it would also concern me if the SNP supported a withdrawal bill that is diametrically opposed to all that they have stood for and is opposed by the majority of Scottish voters.

Brexit is a high risk business for all parties - the risks to the Tories have been plain for all to see. The risks to Labour have resulted on them trying to have no policy at all on Brexit for much of the time.

And the risk to the SNP that you mention has to be balanced against the risk posed by supporting the Tories.

I think the problem with Brexit is that there is no clear route out of here that commands popular support with parliament or the country. If following a successful Scottish Independence  referendum, support in Scotland for Indy remained strong, it would be hard for the UK parliament to seek to overturn it. that's the difference.

Of course if indy negotiations proved difficult and support for Indy melted away, that might well be a very different situation and I have no doubt there would be those who would use it as an excuse to derail the whole exercise.

 

[Comfy Bean]

Nothing much to add here that hasn’t already been said. 

I agree with your general point Neil that ignoring the result of a referendum wouldn’t be a good look for the SNP when they are obviously hoping to win a referendum some time in the future. Obviously that’s why they are being very careful not to ignore the result.

Sturgeons position on the eu has been pretty clear and consistent. She’s voted in as First Minister by a Country that is 62% remain. She wants to encourage immigration as we’re screwed without it. We need folk to come here and pay marginally more tax than rUK and with our shit weather she’s up against it :-)

Why would she vote for May’s deal. If you were Sturgeon would you vote in favour of Mays deal ?

Anywayz, as I said, if your original point was a genuine one then I agree with the issues your highlighting.

[pink_triangle]

I have no doubt there are occasions where SNP politicians are guilty of double standards, but in fairness you will struggle to find a politician who isn't.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

May's deal commits the UK in principal to leaving both.

Factually incorrect.

The deal commits the UK to nothing for the future trade deal. All options remain open.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

However they certainly do oppose the terms of the withdrawal

the SNP oppose staying in the SM and CU? :blink:   

That's what the terms of withdrawal are, until they're not.

And seeing as the SNP do agree with staying in the SM and CU, it's the "until they're not" part which offends the SNP. Which is what I said, they oppose brexit, not the terms of brexit.

But  we already knew that, and why.

I was trying to ask you about the consequences of the SNP supporting Westminster to ignore a referendum result.

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

But Northern Ireland does? And Gibraltar does? No, silly me, of course Scotland doesn't.

being deliberately obtuse doesn't do you any favours. It merely makes you look as thick as the brexiters.

But let's say you got your wish, of staying in the CU/SM permanently. You could trade freely with NI but not the rUK, where they'd be a border (cos Sturgeon's plan has been exposed as as much unicorns as JRM or Corbyn).

Remind me again why leaving the CU/SM is bad...?  

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

And the risk to the SNP that you mention has to be balanced against the risk posed by supporting the Tories.

Sense cannot enter into it where the SNP and tories are involved? It's simply the case that if the tories want something the SNP *MUST* vote against?  

We haven't got where we are because of unthinking tribalism, of course.   

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

If following a successful Scottish Independence  referendum, support in Scotland for Indy remained strong, it would be hard for the UK parliament to seek to overturn it. that's the difference.

but if Scotland had voters' remorse (but not by you) you'd think it's fair-enough that Westminster over-ruled that vote of Scots?

I think you're probably talking bollocks.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

Sturgeons position on the eu has been pretty clear and consistent.

From some angles, not by others.

For example, she highlighted the importance of a single market to Scotland in her Dec 2016 doc, while at the same time advocating a set-up which would remove Scotland from its biggest single market (it's biggest single market by a loooong way).

There's a modicum of sense in the indy version of preferring to stay close to the EU in preference to the UK despite the adverse economic effects that would come with it. That modicum of sense evaporates as far as I can see when not getting the benefits of the EU apart from the single market when Scotland would be throwing away a far greater single market.

A single market is only about being being able to sell your goods into it. The social benefits of the EU are not attached to the single market.

10 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

She wants to encourage immigration as we’re screwed without it.

Scotland gets a greater amount of immigration from rUK than it does the EU, by a long way.

Just as brexit has the UK erecting a mental barrier in the minds of potential EU immigrants to the UK, Sindy would cause the same effect with rUK and cause immigration to Scotland to fall - but by a greater extent that brexit will do.

 

10 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

Why would she vote for May’s deal. If you were Sturgeon would you vote in favour of Mays deal ?

There's a third option to voting for or against, of abstaining.

Why might she vote for it? Perhaps because if she doesn't she cannot expect Westminster to respect an indy vote? 

It's why I asked the question.

Edited January 15, 2019 by eFestivals

[LJS]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Factually incorrect.

The deal commits the UK to nothing for the future trade deal. All options remain open.

There would be no need for the famous backstop if the intention was to remain within the SM & CU. Whatever the practicalities are, a vote for Treeza's plan is a vote in favour of leaving the SM & CU.

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the SNP oppose staying in the SM and CU? ?link:   

That's what the terms of withdrawal are, until they're not.

Really? You'll be able to quote me the bit that says that, then?

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

And seeing as the SNP do agree with staying in the SM and CU, it's the "until they're not" part which offends the SNP. Which is what I said, they oppose brexit, not the terms of brexit.

The "until they're not" bit is the clear and stated intention of the UK government. And the SNP (and me) are opposed to that.

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But  we already knew that, and why.

I was trying to ask you about the consequences of the SNP supporting Westminster to ignore a referendum result.

 

I've answered that .

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

There would be no need for the famous backstop if the intention was to remain within the SM & CU.

incorrect. :rolleyes:  

The intention counts for fuck-all to an Ireland which demands legal surety. Legal surety is only available via a backstop.

Meanwhile, if your version were true, you'd be saying (as Jez is) "NI remaining the SM/CU is so bad I must vote against it, so instead it must remain in the SM/CU". 

I'd love someone to explain any intellectual basis to that paradox.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Really? You'll be able to quote me the bit that says that, then?

Why don't you tell me instead how May's deal has us out of the SM & CU immediately, to be the opposite of what I said.

Is the plan to leave the SM and CU on 29th March, and I've somehow missed it?

Edited January 15, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

The "until they're not" bit is the clear and stated intention of the UK government. And the SNP (and me) are opposed to that.

yep.

But that's opposing leaving the EU, and not a jot about an objection to the terms of leaving the EU (which is what you initially claimed).

So at least we're now on the same page, of agreeing that the SNPs objections are about leaving and not the terms of leaving.

Edited January 15, 2019 by eFestivals