Scottish Parliament Election, 6th May 2021

[Zinneke]

A question : why has DevoMax so often touted before the referendum not been revived. Surely it makes better sense for Nationalists and could be somewhat attractive to Scottish Labour in a reduced format?

[Zinneke]

So Ruth Davidson is back?

[Zinneke]

If SNP wins big, what are the odds of a second referendum? Would the national Parliament go along with it?

Unlikely

https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-independence-boris-johnson-urges-voters-to-ignore-pointless-referendum-talk-12201455

It might come down to the courts, and these are significantly less biased than, say, Spain's.

[Zinneke]

I think the Lanarkshire mining areas are also some of the Orange Order's few remaining areas of strength in Scotland too, which obviously has an effect on constitutional opinions. Not true of the Fife coalfield so far as I'm aware, but I might be wrong on that.

Did these areas vote against devolution?

[Zinneke]

Seems odd for a no confidence vote to be called before she's actually given evidence. Probably means it's more likely the SNP will act in unison on this, than if they'd had another day of bad blood being aired in which to damage themselves?

Outside of the 'bubble' there is quite a wide feeling that 'well you've already made up you minds' when it comes to Sturgeon. The media and the opposition haven't waited to hear her and had no intention to.

What came out today was some evidence in support of the talk of names being shared/leaked etc, but none of it directly links back to Sturgeon. What she says tomorrow is key. I still think it's likely she stays simply because no one cares. Not to say they shouldn't care, but it's not really captured public attention.

The way Alex Salmond has been adopted as a hero by the right-wing press just goes to show how much bad faith is behind this campaign.

[Zinneke]

You don't have to look as far as Joe Biden or the US. The Tories have a thumping majority despite not having a majority of the vote, and largely thanks to an outdated electoral system. It didn't stop them spitting in the face of the other 3 nations while banging the UNITED Kingdom drum. Again, it helps explain the Scottish Nationalist stance, even if I think another referendum would likely fail and that the best strategic course is devo max, and letting the English nationalist movement fry itself in its own fat.

[Zinneke]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

[Zinneke]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

Don't be ridiculous. Wales voted Leave. Over a million people in Scotland voted Leave. Why do you think we had a referendum in the first place? All three main parties supported Remain overall. It is because the EU was an unpopular organisation which many people wanted to leave, not least because they felt politicians hadn't listened to them on that. And Cameron held a referendum as a way to win UKIP votes - an example of FPTP working.

But the entire leaving process was dictated by a narrow majority, and created a new constitutional order. It was at that point that a Scottish referendum became legitimate again. Why should Bojo the clown and some fringe tories who get together to make him uncomfortable under some "research group" tag get to decide what the Brexit looks like, and where all the EU powers go to (Westminster, of course).

I'm not denying Brexit was a UK wide vote. In fact I'm saying the entire process thereafter was much less legitimate, because Westminster democracy is outdated.

[Zinneke]

Anyway Cummings has gone off on one

https://news.sky.com/story/dominic-cummings-lectures-both-boris-johnson-and-sir-keir-starmer-in-post-election-tirade-12299254

dangerously based.

[Zinneke]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

Don't be ridiculous. Wales voted Leave. Over a million people in Scotland voted Leave. Why do you think we had a referendum in the first place? All three main parties supported Remain overall. It is because the EU was an unpopular organisation which many people wanted to leave, not least because they felt politicians hadn't listened to them on that. And Cameron held a referendum as a way to win UKIP votes - an example of FPTP working.

But the entire leaving process was dictated by a narrow majority, and created a new constitutional order. It was at that point that a Scottish referendum became legitimate again. Why should Bojo the clown and some fringe tories who get together to make him uncomfortable under some "research group" tag get to decide what the Brexit looks like, and where all the EU powers go to (Westminster, of course).

I'm not denying Brexit was a EU wide vote. In fact I'm saying the entire process thereafter was much less legitimate, because Westminster democracy is outdated.

And so would Scottish independence be dictated by a narrow majority, create a new constitutional order and the terms determined by Nicola Sturgeon's clique.

I'm not denying that's an issue, but not only do I have more faith in Sturgeon to accomodate those who still want a link with whatever is left of the UK, but I also have faith in the Scottish electoral system to deliver the will of the Scottish people with regards to what they want from the Union and Scotland than I do the Westminster system.

Why should Boris get to handle Brexit? Well, because he was elected leader by his ruling party; which was endorsed a few months later by a thumping majority of seats. (I didn't support the Tories in 2019.)

A majority of seats but not a majority of votes.
And you happen to live in a Union of nations, where such differences should be allowed to be considered. Otherwise you might as well just let England vote every four years and invite some bagpipers and Billy Connolly to represent Scotland in the HoC. THat's the level of contempt Johnson probably has for Scotland anyway.

Also, there is zero constitutional precedent of a return of powers from a supranational organization to the United Kingdom, yet it was decided all but a few symbolic ones would go to the Westminster government. Where is the legitimacy this? It has to be put to a referendum as to where the powers go, or at least a legal council.

Anyway this is more for the Individual Politics section.