To wonder why England wants to keep Scotland?

[user1481215005]

Or am I being really thick? NS has been causing no end of grief the past few years always complaining about how bad Scotland has it (despite receiving more money for Scotland than Scotland gives back) also promising English votes for English laws and then changing that when something she didn't like can up. Her financial plan depends on the North Sea oil. If Scotland keeps rights to that it'll last fifty years tops before oil runs out. She just seems to be a constant pain and wants special treatment which wales and NI don't ever seem to get. I do love Scotland but right now I'm inclined to cheerily wave them off and wish the good luck.

Gruffalo: "I haven't seen anyone call all snp supporters fascists but....it is is very much my view that the SNP are a group of fascist/Anti english racists and IRA supporters. in the past the leader Arthur Donaldson and their favourite poet Mcdermid have been Nazi supporters who wished to set up a quisling government. This is fact."

Uh huh. That is one lovely open mind you have there (that was sarcasm btw). There is absolutely no debating/discussing with you, or Lass and her hated of NS.

NS/SNP are not pro-Scotland they are purely anti-English and pro-independence at whatever cost to Scotland. She speaks for the SNP not for the people of Scotland. The SNP speak for the SNP and not for the people of Scotland. The SNP MPs and MSPs vote for the SNP not for their constituents. They are also in the minority in the Scottish Parliament - the balance of power is held by the greens.

"NS/SNP are not pro-Scotland"

Sigh. I expect they are pro-Australia instead. Don't be so daft.

Blaeberry- The SNP are not anti-English.

Fairytales I think you are right the government don't know what's going on.

If the Conservatives aren't anti-English then I don't know who is, really

The problem I have (among many) with the SNP structure and operation is that their MPs, MSPs and everyone else are not allowed to deviate from the party line. They are not allowed to disagree with their Leader, or criticise her in any way. They are not allowed to speak out saying they disagree with a policy. No other party does that - and although a lot of infighting in a party can tear it to bits like Labour at present, it is very totalitarian to ban any type of discussion or criticism.

As for Conservatives not doing well - if you look at this page www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/scotland/results from the last Scottish parliament elections you'll see they're doing a lot better than they were. Half a million votes, second biggest party, gained 16 seats. Mostly because they are providing a strong, united oppposition to the SNP.

That the Tories are the party who came second across Scotland, with increased shearer of vote, does seem to have been airbrushed out.

If the left-leaning vote had been split between Labour and SNP (as has happened before) then the outcome would have been totally different, given the size of the Tory vote.

They are getting a better vote share because they are selling themselves as the unionist and Brexit party and because Ruth Davidson is better than Kezia Dugdale as a politician.

Labour voters who are unionists don't have much choice.

In my opinion.

I do think the constitutional question is dominating and normal left/right politics isn't happening properly in Scotland but after independence that will change, people will vote for policies rather than independence or unionist

Can I just ask independence supporters their reasons for being pro indy?

IT suits the independence argument to suggest that Scotland's people are "different" and have hugely different values. It's a classic case of othering I think. There are differences up and down the land as there will be within Scotland.
There will be people with similar values in Scotland to the rest of the U.K. Similar wants and needs. Similar ideas re taxation.

Looking at the graphs produced earlier in the thread, I was struck by just how similar Scotland voted to parts of England. The more things were split down, the more you could see Scotland did not speak with one voice, and neither did England.

Nyx - you have reached the same realisation I did yesterday about Gruffalows lack of intellect and sanity.................'she' isn't debating, 'she' is spouting well rehearsed (extreme but mad) assertions. No point giving 'her' attention, it's only encouraging the madness.

Time to get to work..........

I have to wonder why all the no voters are so angry about the possibility of Indy2. If you're absolutely sure it will be a no vote again, what's the problem?

Can I just ask independence supporters their reasons for being pro indy?

It's kind of complicated but for me it kind of boils down to the fact that it is normal for countries to rule themselves, and I have come to realise that the disadvantages of being in the union outweigh the benefits for me personally.

English Scot and non-SNP voter

If TM decides to hold a snap election (star wars day being suggested) then it'll be interesting to see how that affects NS & her mandate to call for a 2nd referendum. It'll be front & centre in their manifesto & I highly doubt they could muffle its significance for the sake of campaigning - SNP have been smart thus far (in the last election) of not making that their main campaign pledge (because there wasn't the appetite for it after the last one so would def be a vote loser) but they'd be painted into a corner because NS made the call when she anticipated TM was about to trigger A50. Bizarrely enough, to even get an election called, TM would have to call in her own party to a vote of no confidence when they're currently sitting very comfortably with zero effective opposition with labour happy to vote to get a snap election & effectively nailing its own coffin in the process because JC is about effective as a chocolate teapot.

NS definitely outmanoeuvred TM in calling for indyref2 but TM could pull the rug from under NS now by putting their claim to a mandate for indyref2 to the test of a snap election.

I find the politics fascinating & a tad scary too. But it's high stakes in these uncertain times & I would not be surprised if TM decided to go for the SNP jugular, thinking it's worth the gamble while having such a huge lead over labour in England.

That the Tories are the party who came second across Scotland, with increased shearer of vote, does seem to have been airbrushed out

I don't think that's deliberate. The Tories only got about 1/2 of the SNP vote, so it's pretty unlikely they'll be in power any time soon. Plus historically people are so conditioned to think of labour being the opposition in Scotland that they tend to think of Labour ahead of the Tories IMO.

Saor I wonder the same. It's the no voters who are (I believe truly, unbelievably, hugely) upset and angry at the very thought of another vote even though there's been 'material change' and all the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted with regard to mandate for one

NS definitely outmanoeuvred TM in calling for indyref2 but TM could pull the rug from under NS now by putting their claim to a mandate for indyref2 to the test of a snap election

Does WM have power over Scottish elections like that?

Plectrum excellent post. I wonder what will happen. Do you think TMay will do it?

If you're absolutely sure it will be a no vote again, what's the problem?

For one the division it causes. I don't want my family harassed, their property damaged, called traitors etc just because they aren't pro indy. I can only see it being even worse than last time tbh.

Bathsheba- self governance for Scotland and resulting self respect, ability to be friends and allies with UK and Ireland without being beat over the head about Barnett, my belief that as a small country with fantastic resources we will thrive as an independent country

Saor I wonder the same

I think its an anger born of hopelessness. They know Scotland is become independent, but at a deep emotional level it is not what they want. It is heart over head for them, hence why there is much emotion, and so few facts.

have to wonder why all the no voters are so angry about the possibility of Indy2. If you're absolutely sure it will be a no vote again, what's the problem?

Gosh, where to even start with this. First, the cost. Just the actual day of the vote costs £16 million. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/04/scottish-independence-referendum-cost-more-than-expected , there are many, many things which the money could be better spent on.

Secondly, the uncertainty. The Scottish economy is underperforming compared with the UK as a whole, and if you're the owner of a big company you want certainty - you're going to be investing in Germany, or somewhere else more stable, not the Uk as a whole or Scotland as the situation is so unclear. Completely agree with Theresa May that the timing is totally wrong - the SNP has to wait until the Brexit deal is clear so that Scotland knows what it's voting for.

Endless campaigning - we have an elected Scottish government which is not doing the day job of running the NHS, schools, police etc because they are devoting 90% of their time to campaigning for independence.

Division - the last independence referendum was hugely divisive and we're still getting over it. Families falling out, huge levels of nastiness and abuse, tearing the country apart. It's like Brexiteers/Remoaners but with bells on. Nobody has the appetite for all of that shite again.

Itsall I think you're right. Emotions are running so high already.

The cost is worth it in my view

The campaigning - SNP are doing their job and well. Brilliant debaters in both parliaments. Grassroots campaigns from all parties and none will be doing the bulk of it.

Division - I see none in real life as friends and family where I am just don't wind each other up about their politics. We have different ideas and vote differently and allow each other that freedom because we are respectful adults. Online there are people who harass and are a bit weird but one can block or delete / unfollow of course.