Has The Queen dying at Balmoral harmed the Scottish independence movement?

[Sharrowgirl]

I was just reading an article about how her death in Scotland has put the country at the front and centre of things, and shown that many Scottish are supportive of the monarchy, judging by the turnout. And equally, that Scotland is important to the monarchy. And that this might remind some people that maybe they want to remain part of the Union after all?

Though it’s not entirely clear whether an independent Scotland would retain the monarchy as head of state, so perhaps it’s not relevant?

Most young people would even struggle to name the Queens children
Most? You've polled all young people to come up with what most of them think?

I don't know. But I do think it was planned that she would die at Balmoral, in an attempt to help unite the union
I think she'd planned to live out her days in Balmoral but I don't think it was politically motivated. And don't trust everything you read on Reddit. (Or the internet in general)

I would agree. Most people in Scotland (there's more of us than the ones you saw queuing up to look at a coffin), have little interest in the Monarchy.

True. Also not everyone queuing up was Scottish. There are loads of Americans in town just now (some here for this, some not) and of course tons of English people. Saw a bloke walking around in a St George/England flag t-shirt earlier, which was… well, let’s say it was a bracing style decision in the capital of Scotland!

Genuine questions:

How many votes on the issue of Independence would be enough?

Would the Scottish and Welsh Independence desires be happy for English Voters to be offered their own independence vote?

Most people in Scotland (there's more of us than the ones you saw queuing up to look at a coffin), have little interest in the Monarchy

Most people in Scotland also have little interest in another referendum. Interesting times.

I think most people are able to distinguish between the wish for self-determination and the Union of the crowns. If Scotland goes independent we would have a head of state just like Canada. Unless a referendum is held on becoming a republic.

Most people in Scotland also have little interest in another referendum. Interesting times

Polling suggests that similar to the issue of independence itself, opinions on whether to hold another ref or not are roughly an even split, so I'd contend your 'most' assertion is incorrect.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-02/poll-shows-scottish-voters-are-split-on-holding-second-independence-referendum?leadSource=uverify%20wall

How many votes on the issue of Independence would be enough?

Well the only fundamentally honest answer to that is as many as the Scots electorate continue to vote for. If it's a stated policy of a political party to hold one, and enough Scots vote for them to form a government, then there's no legitimate reason whatsoever, unless you are fundamentally opposed to basic democracy and people choosing their constitutional future, that there couldn't be one every single parliamentary term.

I’d also like to add that the BBC and Sky have been bigging up the importance of Scotland to the Queen etc but if you listen to it from Scotland they still talk about us as if we’re a foreign land. In fact, they had someone on earlier talking about the Queens foreign holidays and he only remembered the Scottish visits and about her coming home when she was flown back to England. It might just have been a slip of the tongue , but this is a common thing. Scotland is another place, it’s not here and it’s talked about as if it’s a giant holiday park. This winds up lots of people no end.

Would the Scottish and Welsh Independence desires be happy for English Voters to be offered their own independence vote?

Absolutely. Why ever would they not?

If you believe in self-determination then you believe in the right to self-determination, it doesn't come with caveats about precisely who is allowed. If English people want to end their membership in the union, then they should absolutely lobby to hold a referendum to do so. In fact, this would have been a rather elegant solution to the whole Brexit farce. England and Wales could have simply ceded from the union and left Scotland and NI intact as EU nations, just as the populations in those two places wished.

However, when asked whether a referendum should take place next October, 53 per cent of people said it should not, 40 per cent said it should, and the remainder were undecided, a poll for The Scotsman found - so if we’re being generous and split the undecideds then we have 58/45. Ie ‘Most people’.

'The Scotsman'

Seriously?

@XDownwiththissortofthingX thank you for answering. I asked because the fact that the question has never been asked in England, seems to make it seem like the 'English' are blocking Independence, rather than the government, whom many English people (outside of London particularly) feel equally as distant from in terms of priority, if that makes sense?

Now that sounds familiar…Didn’t Ms Shemilt get herself into a bit of hot water (and subsequently deleted said Tweet) for claiming this (based on nothing more than her stream of nationalist consciousness, of course)?

Yes, the Scotsman - and your poll also shows ‘most people’ if you split the undecideds.

Why? Nicola and her pals has no intention of getting shot of the Royal Family, should Scotland become Independent. Mores the blooming pity.

By a paltry 1%, while admittedly that is 1% more than the pro-ref, it's still not indicative of a population that is wholeheartedly against holding a 2nd ref in the way that is commonly portrayed as reality on MN.

And the reason I'm sceptical of the Scotsman is that it's become one of the most rabidly pro-union propaganda rags going over the past 10 years, so I'd hardly expect it to print anything that challenges or doesn't wholly corroborate it's chosen narrative. The Times/Sunday Times isn't exactly impartial either, but not being a publication that is wholly dependent on a Scots readership it's still far less inclined to be fundamentally dishonest with how it choses to frame the issue.

What? I’ve no idea what you’re on about. I quite clearly stated what I heard on the BBC earlier today, think it was about 4.40ish if you want to watch the iPlayer. And I’m not the first to mention that Scotland is talked about as if it’s a foreign holiday home for the wealthy elites. In fact, if you know anything about the history of Scottish infrastructure then you understand exactly what I mean when I say it is viewed as a holiday park.

I'm fairly certain Labour offered people in the North of England a regional parliament, so devolution not dissimilar to that in Scotland, and the whole notion was rejected out of hand. While I have no issue whatsoever with England theoretically asking itself the question, it appears very much that there is simply no real desire to even ponder it. Understandable, given that England already has a Parliament that it dominates, pretty much gets whichever government it votes for, and the union is overwhelmingly Anglocentric and preoccupied with English issues in any case.

There's also a difference between Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy. I've seen a lot of respect for her personally that may not endure for the rest of the royal family.

1 in 10 plus 3% - so more than 1% obviously. If you average out the 2 polls it’s still ‘most people’. I realise this does not suit the nationalist narrative though.

Is there a approved benchmark for ‘most people’ from a nationalist viewpoint when it comes to a referendum?

Google is your friend here - and yes, I’m well aware that the nationalists put forward this claim.

Is there a approved benchmark for ‘most people’ from a nationalist viewpoint when it comes to a referendum?

There doesn't have to be an 'approved benchmark' thanks to the fact that we have regular Scottish General Elections. If it's a stated policy of a party to seek a referendum, and they duly form a government, then that's all that matters in reality.

But still, the 'Sturgeon and the SNP only got 49% of the vote' trope gets trotted out. First of all, that completely ignores the portion of the electorate who also voted for other pro-indi parties which takes the total up to 51% of the electorate, and secondly, I don't simultaneously hear anything from unionists declaring Conservative rule from Westminster to be inherently fraudulent and without mandate given that they formed a government with 34% of the vote. So at least lets be consistent in what we consider legitimate.

1 in 10 plus 3% - so more than 1% obviously. If you average out the 2 polls it’s still ‘most people’. I realise this does not suit the nationalist narrative though

1 in 10 said they were neither in favour nor against, plus 3% who said they did not know, so the only stated difference is in the 44% who said no v's the 43% who said yes, i.e. 1%

Neatly sidestepped there - brava.

And on that note I shall bow out to pick up the boy from footy training.