Boris Johnson has replied to Nicola Sturgeon's formal request for a referendum on Scottish independence:
The reply is worrying for a great many reasons.
Forst, it is because of the absence of reasoning supplied. It is not sufficient to say that the future of Scotland was determined by the comment of an SNP leader encouraging people to vote in 2014. But that is the only actual reason given for rejecting this request. Johnson knows that's a ridiculous argument, but he uses it anyway.
Second, to argue that to deny the people of Scotland a vote is to uphold democracy is absolutely absurd: it is very obviously the opposite of that.
Third, it is also very obviously true that Scotland has not stagnated as a result of the actions of the Scottish government in the last decade: what they have had to deal with is the dramatic fallout of a succession of Tory governments in London each of which has been determined to deliver policy intended to make Scotland stagnate.
And the demand for unity is, in the circumstances, so crass - and so betrayed by the abysmal behaviour of Tory MPs towards the SNP in Westminster - that there is not a person who could take it seriously.
The letter is, then, notable for the absurdity of what it does say.
But what is not said? Everything really. There is no suggestion as to how the grievance that so many feel in Scotland will be addressed. Similarly, there is no discussion of how devolved power issues will be addressed under Brexit. Nor is there an explanation as to how the budget crisis Scotland faces because Westminster is not going to announce new fiscal policy until March can be tackled in future. There is, in fact, nothing said, at all.
The only possible conclusion from this is that the policy of this government towards Scotland in general and the Scottish government, in particular, is to display unlimited contempt. It's as if the colonial; era was back and it's time for the natives to learn their place and be grateful for it.
This is not going to end well.
It has, most especially, not to end well for Johnson.
And the bizarre thing is that any thinking person knows that he is on the wrong side of history here. Scotland cannot be held in a Union against its will forever. And the more that Union is imposed the greater the will to leave will be.
So the real question is why Johnson is setting himself up to fail? Or is to simply that he already thinks his time in office will be limited - because there is little doubt he will bet bored of being prime minister in a while, just as he got bored of being Mayor of London - and he thinks it will be for others to sort out the mess? The classic FTSE CEO attitude, in other words. I have a suspicion this may be the case. But the cost to the country of his indifference is going to be enormous.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There was a survey of Conservative party members which showed that they preferred Brexit to Scotland, or Northern Ireland, remaining part of the UK.
There are few Conservative seats north of the border. They go to opposition parties. Johnson may well think that if both parts of the UK leave, it will only increase the Tory majority. It might also save money-I am not sure about the economics in regard to Scotland but NI costs the central govt. about the same as the net contribution to the EU.
There are other issues such as the basing of the Trident submarines and even membership of the Security Council but he seems quite happy to gamble about keeping them.
It surprises me that so many people seem to follow the media spin (born in Downing Street) that the Johnson’s large majority means we can all go back to sleep for the next five years (except for Dominic Cummings). I suggest we wait for reality to unfold.
We have not done Brexit yet; not even after the “Bongs” of Big Ben on 31st January. Johnson hasn’t achieved anything – and the election is long over; that was yesterday’s news. We do not have a deal. We do not even know if there will be a deal. Buy the popcorn now: corner the market.
There is no Conservative Party. There is a Brexit-ERG-disgruntled Northern Labour coalition representing itself as the Conservative Party, which is largely defunct. Much of the rest of the Conservative Party (remember them?) is now ‘over the water’; the modern Jacobites. Buy the popcorn.
Austerity is over. Johnson is already bailing out Flybe. That is going down well with business – and with the climate lobby. This is just the start, but you catch the drift of Johnsonism? Buy the popcorn.
The Household Budget thesis is over. Spend, spend, spend – the Red Wall is waiting. That will be easy. You think so? You think at least half the people who voted Conservative think Deficits are great; just let the National Debt rip – splash out on Boris Johnson’s impulsive, self-serving, short-term political whims? Buy the popcorn.
Sky News reported that “the UK is failing to pass on the details of an estimated 75,000 convictions of foreign criminals to their home EU countries, it has been revealed.” That will go down well with the EU in building security relationships for Brexit. Britain is so professional under the Conservatives. Buy the popcorn.
Crossrail is late; HS2 is faltering. London continues to eat sufficient finance for several UKs, and there is little to show for any of it. And now the North is watching. Buy the popcorn.
Meanwhile the NHS falls apart, knife crime rises, universal credit is still not working and worst of all, the failure of the authorities to protect the vulnerable young is proving an endlessly repeated catastrophe in our towns and cities, and is utterly unforgivable. This is not funny.
“Boris Johnson has admitted there will be some customs checks for goods crossing the Irish Sea after Brexit” (Guardian, 8th December). Watch this space.
Scotland has not gone away, and it isn’t going away. Buy the popcorn. Boris Johnson may prove – above all – to be the perfect similitude of Lord North (the man who lost America). Boris Johnson is perhaps best fitted of all the current political bunglers for the role he suits best; destined to be the PM who lost Scotland.
Will they all go wrong? Perhaps not. Who knows? They do not need to. I merely point out that Boris Johnson has done nothing, has no plan and nothing is certain. Nothing. I rest my case.
Bought my popcorn – as well as various other necessities of life – more than a while ago..!
That apart I agree with your evaluation of Boris J – Leaving aside all the epithets that he so richly deserves he is an opportunist of the first order…
My main worry is Dominic Cummings… He is in a position to manipulate the Johnson & appears to be very successful at his chosen task. He is on record saying that “Conservatives do not care about the country, their bank balance is more important” (I paraphrase)
If he (Cummings) wants to rebuild the country by tearing it to pieces first he appears to have placed himself in the correct position to achieve his aim…. I wish for Scotland to become independent but I do NOT wish it to be at the expense of the whole of the UK … DC doesn’t appear to care either way, he simply wants chaos unleashed..!
I like this: “Dominic Cummings… He is in a position to manipulate the Johnson & appears to be very successful at his chosen task”
I’ve previously banged on about Cummings being over-rated and cited evidence to boot but clearly I’ve missed the point. He’s there to manipulate the PM (not the people) and at that task he really is quite successful.
Ian,
The “net contribution to the EU” is basically a misconception. It is purely fiscal in its premise and doesn’t measure up up in broader economic terms.
2014 wasn’t that long ago and 55 -45 was a reasonable margin. Are you arguing that the General Election result gives the SNP a mandate to demand a referendum? Though a large proportion of those who voted their way are not necessarily wanting independence. I suppose if Johnson immediately caved into Sturgeons demands then he would have the 55% who voted remain up in arms?
The facts have changed
If you have not noticed please get up to speed
But the facts haven’t changed. Scotland chose one of two options from a binary choice. There was no ifs or buts or what might happen tomorrow or next Tuesday. It was a simple question that yielded a conclusive outcome. Recently, the issue of the UK leaving the EU has been added into the mix as justification for another Scottish referendum. Yet the same people arguing for this were typically the same people suggesting that the UK’s membership of the EU had minimal impact on the UK ‘… it costs less than a cup of tea.’ etc.: ‘The UK should stay in the EU because it has minimal impact on the UK’. ‘Scotland should separate from the UK because the EU has [minimal] impact on the UK’: it is just flawed thinking compounded by Scottish nationalists and British ‘remain’ inclined thinkers.
Oh good heavens, grow up
Brexit has changed everything
Stop being absolutely ridiculous
Jason h, yes the vote in 2014 was decisive enough, of course it was, it was also won on the basis of a whole raft of promises, few of which were delivered. 55% voted No, 63% voted Remain by the way, you are getting your referendums mixed up. That aside, the increase in support for independence from a low starting point was quite remarkable, and indicates that the decision was not quite as clear-cut as the uk government had hoped. But many things have happened since then.
The main thing is that the SNP, the party of government in Scotland, have now won several elections on the mandate to hold a referendum in the event of a material change, like being forced to ‘leave the EU against our will’. Scotland did not vote to leave the EU, so that material change has come to pass, and it is against our will. They had a choice in whether they exercised that mandate or not, and they took it. There have been a few votes in the Scottish Parliament that have passed the bill to hold a referendum, these are the legally elected representatives of Scotland voting to allow the Scottish people to vote on the matter. If we do not want to dissolve the union with the UK, then we will vote no.
So everything has been done within the rules, and properly so, and the end result is to be allowed a choice, one that we were given before, but one that we have been promised again – by the people that we keep on, repeatedly, again and again, voting into power. At what point do you decide that Scottish people are no longer allowed any choice in anything? Who decides? On what basis are they allowed to decide?
The fervent acceptance by people that we should not ever be allowed to vote ever again is an outrage. This is not about independence, that will always be in doubt until we have a referendum, this is about democracy being seen to be done. If the rules state one thing, then it should apply in all circumstances. Picking and choosing when and where they apply for convenience of the ruling party makes a sham of the whole system. It benefits no one to encourage the ruling party to ignore democracy.
The 55% that voted against Scottish independence included half a million English folk that live in Scotland , they account for about 20%
A majority of Scottish people voted for Scottish independence
Sounds a bit racist – are you saying English people who live in Scotland don’t count. They are an important part of our economy and our communities. Perhaps you will have them all repatriated if you ever got independence and leave Scotland to the real Scots only.
That is something of a stereotype I think. There are loads of folk from England that are pro-Indy, see for example English Scots for Yes, D&G English for Yes, etc. Since I am from the Isle of Man you might well lump me into the ‘English’ category and I have been in the SNP since 1988. There are also loads of Scots that are very very small ‘c’ conservative and thus against Indy. Most of our neighbours in Eskbank are ‘true Scots’ and mostly staunchly ‘No’. So I don’t think it is very helpful to start down the ‘It was English settlers wot done it’ route. It is certainly unlikely to persuade any No voter to switch to Yes.
Tim
I agree with you
Stereotypes do not not help
I clearly sympathise with Scottish independence but admit to not knowing that I have any Scottish blood
Richard
You have put this rather badly Terence, the statistics show that those people of Scottish heritage were a majority in favour of independence, but it was EU nationals, including English nationals right enough, that swayed the vote – and no wonder when they were told voting Yes would take Scotland out of the EU,,, I very much doubt English people living in Scotland are any different to the Scots when asked about independence (though they were threatened with becoming ‘foreigners’, so maybe there was some sway). Scots were just threatened with an asteroid strike, which we obviously thought worth it in the main.
That’s life though, if you live and contribute in Scotland, you should get a say – we just have to remember that everyone has different motivations and can be convinced by different things – and it’s possible the demographic not of Scottish heritage were slightly less aware of just how underhand the British state could be,,, I can only assume people are more aware now, but some will never be, whatever their heritage.
Interested to hear this ( voiced on Broadcasting Scotland’s Scotland@7 programme Monday edition ) and remember it was the day before his letter to our First Minister.
“Boris no longer wants to discuss Brexit. He just wants to get on with discussing the business of the day. … Business of the day are possibly things like HS2 and Hinkley Point, Crossrail etc but he doesn’t want to deal with the most complex of discussions such as the way forward for the constitution, what his vision is of Brexit. It seems to be 31st January that’s it done and we can just wash our hands of it. ”
I didn’t observe his reign of Mayor of London with any interest at all – does this ring true on past performance?
Yes
The letter only confirmed explicitly what many up here have suspected for years, that Scotland is a colony of Westminster and everything else is merely window dressing to keep the us locals happy in our cage.
It also confirms that Boris has no interest in building bridges or consensus and will use his majority to drive through whatever he sees fit, which is very unlikely to benefit the vast majority of people.
The direction of travel has been trod before and is worrying!
Perhaps Craig Murray has the solution
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/westminster-cannot-block-scottish-independence/
Excellent piece
Craig at his best
Excellent Piece, Richard.
I have a fear that the Tories’ delaying of the UK Budget is a deliberate strategy to undermine the Scottish Gov and, by extension, the devolved settlement. My understanding is that Scottish Local Authorities are legally required to make public in March the details of their budget plans for the new fiscal year starting on 1 April. By delaying the UK budget until late March makes it virtually impossible for the Scottish Gov and Local Authorities to finalise their inter-dependent budgets in the time available. The danger is that Westminster will seize the opportunity to fund the local authorities directly, thereby sidelining Holyrood and undermining the devolution settlement, while simultaneously blaming the Scottish Gov for failing to ensure that budgets are produced timeously. The Scottish Finance Secretary will announce his budget on 6 February to make time for parliamentary scrutiny and local authority budget setting. However, at 6 Feb, he won’t know what funds will be at his disposal via the UK Block Grant, so clearly adjustments will be required in late March. Setting budgets is a long and tiresome task and having to revisit them to make adjustments and then republish them will be about as popular among the civil servants and office-holders as mass flatulence in the International Space Station.
Agreed re Craig Murray’s blog piece: the EU is very aware that over 5 million people who are currently EU citizens will be taken out of the EU in 16 days’ time by a country which will not then be an EU member, despite the fact that 2/3rds of the Scottish electorate voted in 2016 to remain in the EU and since then that fraction has increased substantially. After 1 February the EU is indeed likely to be as helpful as it can be towards Scotland’s push for independence and, as Craig points out, the EU will not wish to be helpful towards rUK if it continues to prevent Scotland making its own decisions.
On another topic, today’s Herald carries a report that the Scottish Gov plans to issue its own economic results in order to show a more accurate picture of the Scottish economy than GERS and to reflect the difference between outcomes likely under Independence rather than just the largely estimated status quo figures in GERS.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18160170.mackay-plans-pro-independence-alternative-official-gers-report-finances/
Thanks Ken
And about time re GERS….
Ken, your concern for the devolution settlement is a valid one I think, you should also mention the ‘uk government in Scotland’ office that’s currently being established in Edinburgh. I know little about it, but why would they need a Scottish office with thousands of civil servants when we already have a Scottish Parliament to manage our affairs? A curious thing to spend time and money on, things perhaps better spent on customs and excise matters at this juncture.
(I don’t really agree with Craig, except that it’s good to realise there are many options, you really need a large majority of the populace in favour before you take such unilateral paths, and there is very little polling information to suggest we have that. We need a poll, but there is also a few ways we can achieve that)
A UDI is certainly the only way Scotland will ever get a reversal of the ongoing rentier enclosures of its resources.
A referendum run under the discredited Electoral Commission will undoubtedly be open to the same manipulation as the recent referendums (and ge) in the UK.
They should instead conduct a direct house by house survey of all adults – whether registered to vote or not – to determine if there is a unanimity of desire for Independence from Westminster.
If that is positive, It is in the hands of the Scottish Parliamentry representatives, to declare UDI without any further delay and institute full control from that parliament.
It would seem to me that if Scotland is to declare unilateral independence it has to be reliant on the EU making clear it will not continue trade talks with Johnson’s government unless it adheres to international law and as back-up will rapidly insert a peace-keeping force into Scotland if Johnson tries to resolve the matter through force.
What is it among most, but not all, of the political class that they have this asinine capacity to learn absolutely nothing from history? The forty years from the early 1880s when the case for Irish Home Rule became incontrovertible were characterised by a sequence of decisions and actions by successive UK governments – some with unintended consequences, but many with entirely predictable and terrible consequences – which progressively and cumulatively provoked radicalisation, irrenconcilable divisions and bloody conflicts on the island that have a continuing legacy.
I’m not saying that Scotland is going, or will go, down this road. But Boris Johnson’s absurd rhetoric is of a piece with Randolph Churchill’s declaration in the 1880s that “the Orange card is the card to play” which culminated in his son, as Secretary for War, in March 1920, sending in the Black and Tans.
It is for the people of Scotland, and the people of Scotland alone, to decide.
Agreed
It was pretty much the same on multiple occasions. India, the Boer War in South Africa (which ended up being the most expensive fought by the UK prior to WW1), the Malayan Emergency, Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. The amount of resistance from London generally depended on financial value, so there was only token resistance to independence for many African countries, remote islands, etc. I guess NZ, Canada, Australia and South Africa managed to get the Statute of Westminster through in 1931 because a fight was just not going to work when it would have been all between relatives here and relatives there. I suspect that might also apply within the UK since I can’t really see the army agreeing to occupy Scotland. In so far as there actually is an army, of course. 75,000 troops does not go very far if you have to occupy a country.
And when many of them are Scottish….
For the man who is supposed to be ‘dead in a ditch’ to rely on a casual figure of speech five years ago as the only stated reason for rejection of the demand for a referendum is beyond pathetic. Beyond parody and beyond the pale.
Andy, beyond parody and beyond the pale is not just an apt description of Johnson, it’s an apt description of a rotten political situation.
Yes, I agree with all this and it makes very angry that politics has descended to lies, mendacity, authoritarianism and the suborning of democracy, which now appears to mean whatever Humpty Dumbty Johnson says it means. We really are in a Looking Glass world.
Slightly off topic but I see some of the Labour hopefuls are following the Johnson line, almost word for word, with the lie about the NHS, tax and public services under the Scottish Government. In Scotland Labour has gone from regarding us as a fiefdom, where they were entitled to expect Scotland to return a majority of Westminster MP’s in Labour colours to an embarrassing irrelevance. I can see them going the same way in England. And frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn, because I wonder if they really deserve the support of socialist-leaning folk, just because there is no alternative?
Agreed Graham. Both about the depths to which UK politics has sunk in the ‘victory’ of the Tories, and the uselessness of Labour. A.C.Graling has an excellent article in The New European where he points out the following facts:
– The Tories only got 1/3 million extra votes compared to 2017, yet got from a hung Parliament to an 80 seat majority, and the LD’s got an extra 1.3 million votes, but actually lost 1 seat. All due to the ridiculous FPTP voting system.
– And we still have this system because the Tories will never change it as its a regressive system giving them undeserved Parliamentary majorities time after time, and Labour don’t change it because though they are supposed to be a progressive party, they actually behave in a remarkably regressive manner. The attitude taken towards other progressive parties, and Scotland, being a case in point. Just as Labour used to expect Scotttish voters to obediently vote for them as though the Scots had no minds of their own, so Labour expect progressives to vote for them as under FPTP they have to in order not to split the vote. Didn’t work too well just now, did it?
– Isn’t it obvious that Labour itself is in fact two parties now? A radical left (Corbyn), and a centrist group. Both of which hate each other and are more interested in ousting the other from control of the party than opposing the Tories. Under PR this wouldn’t matter, you could have left and centre left parties as you do in many other European countries, and people could vote accordingly. Here, it’s a disaster. You’re right that Labour doesn’t deserve progressives’ support. Their failure to take the opportunity to change to PR from 1997 – 2010, and their tribalism, has been a disaster.
Many thought provoking comments above (thanks all). Despite being supposedly the Conservative and Unionist Party the prospect of Scotland’s departure must surely have its attractions to any Cynical Tory strategist. At a stroke, such a development moves the political Centre of Gravity of Rump-UK to the Right as well as moving its geographical CoG South, nearer its heartlands. Such an act, when coupled with English boundary changes and our FPTP voting system could extend their power base indefinitely. In this sense, aggravating and antagonising our excellent Northern neighbour might seem quite an attractive interim proposition.
The whole suggestion is ultimately FPTP reliant and long term, it wouldn’t work out for them. The Tories got 43% of the vote. With Brexit done and UKIP gone, the current balance of alliances will change and in an angry, post-Brexit disaster Britain things could swing badly against the Tories and in favour of Labour or a progressive alliance. No dedicated Unionist is going to trade the loss of Scotland in return for some dubious, nebulous electoral advantage.
Your comments connect with me Marco, except that I am not sure that I follow your final sentence featuring ‘trade-off’, or that sentences connection with what went before?
My position is that I question the extent to which the Conservatives are a fully committed Unionist Party (and it is a question, not an assertion either way). But much more certain is that they have an unbridled desire to remain in office (and, unfortunately, an enviable record in achieving that objective). But the presence of Scottish voters within their electorate seems unlikely to ever promote that core goal of holding onto power and plenty of Tories recognise this.
Marco Fante says:
“No dedicated Unionist is going to trade the loss of Scotland in return for some dubious, nebulous electoral advantage.”
I wouldn’t bet on that. You think there are many dedicated Unionists in the English Shires Conservative party? If they were offered a choice between ‘Socialism’ (spit) in the Union which they firmly believe they are subsidising through their taxes, or ditching the distant ‘rotten estates’ for a solid Home Counties Tory hegemony in perpetuity…..? I think they’d have their Vanguard Class submarines into Buckler’s Hard if they had to tow them in with rowing boats.
At cabinet level someone at the treasury will have pointed out the fictional nature of GERS and they are likely to be bit more circumspect.
I wont profess to any particular expertise here and I’ll admit that your guess is as good as mine if not better on this particular point but I have always understood the Tories to be fundamentally Unionist as well as realistic enough to know that there is going to be another Labour government in Westminster at some point anyway.
Losing Scotland won’t put Labour out of business. The SNP have already taken their Scottish vote (or most of it) years ago and yet the Tories were forced into minority government in 2017 when Labour got their biggest increase in vote share since Atlee. Post-Brexit calamity will see alignments change yet again. The Tories won’t be fool enough to think that rUK could be taken for granted. That’s just present-tense thinking. There’s no certainty or foresight in it .
As for their Unionist tendency, well, I would have thought it was self-evident (and I’m not even going to mention Northern Ireland). I’ll just split this down the middle and say that Unionist Tories (ie. Tories) won’t want to forego Scotland on the basis of some questionable rUK political advantage but on the other hand I can’t see them resorting to “force” to maintain the union as some commenters here have suggested. That would be a bit too much to speculate and (thankfully) hard to imagine.
There was no “promise”. The correct quote so often referred to was by Alex Salmond to Andrew Marr “: “In my view this is a once in a generation – perhaps even a once in a lifetime – opportunity.”. How does that translate into a promise of any kind that any outcome would last for a generation or lifetime? An opportunity may only arise sporadically but then again it might not.
The Edinburgh agreement
The governments have agreed that the referendum should:
:: have a clear legal base; complied with
:: be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament: complied with
:: be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people; complied with
:: deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect. Promises made or implied in the “VOW” which have yet to be delivered failed to reflect the “expression of the views of people in Scotland” so the result is one very few respect.
The people of Scotland voted decisively to stay only after David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg two days before the referendum personally pledged that a “No” vote would deliver “faster, safer and better change” than would independence and “Extensive new powers for the parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties,” they wrote. This sentiment was enshrined in the “VOW” on the front page of the Daily Record “A NO vote will deliver faster safer and better change than separation” The main parties had indeed agreed, at the eleventh hour, on “a process” and “a timetable” to deliver extra powers. But they had not agreed on what those powers should be and all or what the VOW meant. Consequently, the Smith commission set up to deliver said change never did deliver the radical changes implied by the VOW and the proposals delivered were watered down and deleterious to Scottish needs. In short, they were “SHAFTED” much like the current Brexit debacle has shafted the UK.
There has been no political stagnation in Scotland unless you consider the will of the people in supporting the SNP to the detriment of all other parties stagnation. If that is the case no doubt Boris the Mendacious’s government will be a stagnating influence on UK politics given its majority. Economic stagnation has been a fact of life in Scotland for at least the last century a fact which has never been addressed with any conviction by any Westminster government leading to the rise of the SNP and its calls for independence when it can exercise all the levers of power and choice in its own defence.
How you compare school performance between two entirely different systems is always problematic with the Scottish system being much more broadly based than its English counterpart. Relying on PISA stats. is not necessarily what education is or should be about. By emphasising a narrow range of measurable aspects of education, Pisa takes attention away from the less measurable or immeasurable educational objectives like physical, moral, civic and artistic development, thereby dangerously narrowing our collective imagination regarding what education is and ought to be about. Preparing our youth for gainful employment is not the only, and not even the main goal of public education, which has to prepare students for participation in democratic self-government, moral action and a life of personal development, growth and wellbeing. As regards the performance of the NHS systems it would appear both Scotland and rest of the UK are suffering fro the same malaise lack of appropriate funding, however, the Scottish system has and is performing better than England over the main measurable parameters.
Sturgeon doesn’t really want indyref 2 because she knows there is a risk she could lose it; once that happens, the issue really would be closed for a generation, and the rationale for the SNP would be called into question. She knew full well that Johnson would refuse her request for a referendum.
The reason she is pushing for one is that she wants Scotland to play the victim, and that ‘the English’ are responsible for all Scotland’s problems. It whips up support from younger voters to rally round the flag, and is a smokescreen for the economic and social problems Scotland faces.
With respect, that’s absolute nonsense
Oh, I don’t know; hasn’t Mr Cooper just shown that he alone has magically solved the whole problem very easily; “just like that”?
Thanks Richard… it is indeed nonsense – total and absolute…
Tony Cooper: please cease and desist with your misrepresentation of our First Minister… She has been, from the very start, made herself very clear that our (Scotland’s) problem is not with “the English” it is with the Westminster Govt…! The GERS formula shows, if anything, how Scotland has/is suffering as a result of the economic mis-management of successive Govt.s of both flavours!
(As an aside I have a number of friends in England who I get on very well with & apportion no blame to them – none are in any position to influence policy!)
Tony Cooper says: (Amongst some other less coherent and credible observations)
“She knew full well that Johnson would refuse her request for a referendum.”
Indeed she did. We all did. But process is important. And this was part of the process of allowing Boris Johnson to make an error. Something he can be fairly relied on to do repeatedly. He has form. 🙂
I think there is an unfortunate misunderstanding of this issue. An independent Scotland would represent the break-up of the United Kindom – Great Britain – equivalent to Russia taking over the Ukraine. We would be neither united nor great. Does anyone seriously think that this country, in which the election system is designed to be undemocratic, and Parliament and the judiciary held in such contempt, would ever allow the contemptible Scots to democratically initiate the break-up? Neither the hapless Cameron nor the buffoon Boris would ever have been given the power to put the country at risk in this way. So what am I saying? Wake up and smell the coffee!
I think Craig Murray is right in saying their consent is not required
The UK legal opinion is that it is not required
What is required is that other countries recognise Scotland as a country – and the EU has every reason to do so
Agreed Craig Murray makes a compelling case. And if it comes to this, can I make a plea that the border is reinstated at Hadrian’s wall please, as in days of yore?
Great idea….
@ Alan Fowler
Erm, I don’t think Hadrian’s wall has ever been the Scotland/England border.
But I agree with the sentiment :-).
In fact, I’d suggest a border even further south across the Ribble/Humber line. Bring back Old Northumberland!
The only point I’d dispute is that it’s not just Scotland that Johnson holds in contempt. He is contemptuous of all those who are not directly supporting his personal agenda. And even contemptuous of many of those who do.
I agree
@Robin Stafford
“He is contemptuous of all those who are not directly supporting his personal agenda.”
Personal Agenda ? I’m not convinced he has an agenda in the sense of a political vision so presumably we agree that his personal agenda doesn’t extend much beyond personal aggrandisement. (?) This would make him the UK’s first ‘cult of celebrity’ PM. Cometh the hour cometh the man. 🙁
Thats pretty much what I had in mind
Hadrians wall is in England
Do you want to gift Scotland a big chunk of England when Scotland becomes independent
I think you need to read the original comment
Gifting hardly comes into it. The North-east is not anyone’s gift to give. But as next door neighbours to Scotland many of us desperately hope they will wish to remain as part of the UK; not least due to the points I raised earlier. However, if because of very understandable frustrations with events in England, the Scots decide they want to go, surely its obvious we on the South side of the border can’t force them to remain? Is that not the key point here?
In fact my fear stated earlier is that after much blustering and huffing a Johnson government might be quite pleased to eventually see Scotland go in order to further consolidate the Tory hold South of the border and in Parliament. Am I out on a limb here?
That may be Johnson’s long term view
I have suggested he will huff and puff now but eventually concede having said he had done all he could
terence callachan says:
“Hadrians wall is in England”
People in Scotland know this, and some in England know this too, The comment is generally regarded as a joke because at some stage Boris Johnson referred to reinstating Hadrian’s wall and it caused great mirth. Largely for the reason you mention. I wouldn’t like to guess at what level Boris thought he was making a joke and whether at the time he realised just how far south Hadrian built his wall. I choose to believe he had no idea it cuts a line through the city of Newcastle On Tyne. I think he knows rather less about the Romans than he knows about the ancient Greeks. And less again about the Scots 🙂
But I could add that in his opinion off the cuff comments are binding
That’s what he is claiming with his ‘once in a generation claim’
“But I could add that in his opinion off the cuff comments are binding”
Hmmmm….the man who would ‘be dead in a ditch’ regards off the cuff remarks as binding, does he ? 🙂
A relative newcomer to Scotland’s burgeoning home-grown media is
https://youtu.be/xNDtA3uS_WY
Fruity language in parts but expresses what a great number of Scots feel..!
I will stick my head above the parapet for the silent majority who voted No in 2014. The vast majority on this site seem to be hard core SNP supporters who don’t want to listen to other views on indyref2. I and many others I speak with get totally fed up with the endless demands and protests for another referendum which seems to dominate political discussion in Scotland. None of us are political activists. I think you all need to remember this – you cant say you speak for Scotland or the majority of people – you don’t. Yes of course the SNP have the majority of Westminster seats – they had more in 2016. And yes things have changed with Brexit but thats where I’m not sure some of the logic stands up. There seems to be an assumption that those who voted to stay in the EU also want independence?
I and all my direct family and many friends voted to stay in the EU but don’t support independence so don’t somehow take our EU vote as SNP support as Sturgeon has often done. We support staying in the UK ahead of the EU and unfortunately you cant have both (not anymore).
I also despair at some of the anti-English comments that are made on this subject. There are a large number of English origin people that live in Scotland as part of the UK and make a huge contribution towards the country – be careful what you wish for.
A lot of people just cant face the prospect of 2nd referendum when the chaotic path that would follow would probably make Brexit look like a picnic and they would take some convincing on the economic case.
If there ever was a 2nd referendum and it was another No – would that be the end of it.
I think you have the mistaken impression that a belief that Scotland might be better off as an independent country automatically equates to support of the SNP
I think you need to broaden your awareness in that case because that is clearly not true and undermines your argument
Not sure if I follow Richard. I was mainly making the point that many people who voted to stay in the EU (perhaps not strongly) don’t support independence.
I think you are on a different topic suggesting that people who support independence don’t always support SNP. Nothing to do with my argument but an interesting concept – haven’t met any yet but realise you fit into that category.
Try Scottish Greens
Ross K says:
“… many people who voted to stay in the EU (perhaps not strongly) don’t support independence….”
I’m not sure it is ‘many’, but polling indicates they are there. There are even those who vote for the SNP and don’t support independence !! That has to be combination of endorsement of SNP doing ‘the day job’ and despair at the dismal alternatives in Scotland.
“I think you are on a different topic suggesting that people who support independence don’t always support SNP. Nothing to do with my argument but an interesting concept — haven’t met any yet but realise you fit into that category.”
You maybe need to get out more (?) We’re out here. Richard suggests ‘Greens’ many of whom would not waste a vote on a FPTP election, but might give Greens their second vote. And I think there are possibly significant numbers who would cheerfully revert to Labour and Tory tribal lines if and when independence is achieved and the traditional parties are seen to have their focus on Scottish affairs, and have policies for Scotland rather than present slavish obedience to Westminster. Lib Dems have maintained a strong following and will not fare so badly in the Holyrood elections as they did with anglophile Swinson’s inept (and narcissistic) bid for power in Westminster. I’d be very surprised indeed if an independent Scotland looked like a one party state for very long, any more than a Westminster ruled UK would with a PR voting system. PR in the UK election which just delivered a huge majority for the Tories would have yielded victory for a progressive alliance if such a thing was possible in the present malfunctional, tribal party jungle. FPTP would have done so in 2017 with some co-operation between progressive tribes.
And English voters wonder why Scots wish for independence ? Really ?
Agree with much of that
2 things:
1. For some time now people have been deriding Brexit as the path to the end of the Union – an effective self defeat for Unionists. Johnson’s entire answer to that is to think: ‘well we don’t have to allow that and we won’t’. We are now seeing the forecast scenario play out. This is just the beginning.
2. Regarding this: “It’s as if the colonial; era was back and it’s time for the natives to learn their place and be grateful for it.”
Absolutely, Johnson and the Tory Brexiteers are blatant, delusional Empire nostalgists. That has always been the case and that (among other things) will be their undoing.
I’ve just looked again at Johnson’s letter at the top of this thread. He claims to have ‘carefully considered and noted the arguments…..”
I strongly suspect that starts his letter with a lie. I’d be surprised if he has even read it.