Will Reform win SNP seats in May elections ?

[52andblue]

And, if they won enough to form a coalition or even won outright, what then for devolved Scottish policies, like Benefits or education?

I imagine that Reform policies on eg benefits are as far away from current SNP ones as possible. Could they make sweeping changes quickly if they wished?

Really disagree with this sentiment and think those of us who do have a responsibility to call it out when people say it.
Reform want to deport people with settled status, they want a French style health service with no plan to deliver it, they want to roll back social security support which will leave people in profound poverty.
This is by some degree outside normal politics of the last 70 years here. It is not the same as SNP manifesto, although there is plenty to disagree with there.

The SNP show no sign of addressing the soaring benefits bill. It needs to be addressed for us to be able to rebuild public services. It is not fair to ask workers in Scotland to pay the highest rates of tax in the UK not for better public services but to further feather the nests of those with no inclination to work.

Thr NHS funding model is totally broken. We need a better funded NHS. I want medical treatment within days, not years. Don’t you? Surely you understand this? Waiting for 3 years in pain for a hip operation is not a ‘service’. You’d be prosecuted if you kept an animal like this.

The SNP’s attitude to immigration, in 2021 praised a mob of people who physically prevented the home office from removing 2 illegal immigrants. These were people with no right whatsoever to be in the UK. I’m all for Scotland hosting people with work visas and skills that we need. Illegal immigrants must be deported. The SNP don’t seem to understand that.

Im not voting Reform, but they are raiding important issues other parties would rather ignore and that will certainly win them votes.

Yes i agree although my understanding is Highland council plan to put out a survey around air b&b etc in Inverness and second home ownership with the view of potentially banning them due to the chronic housing shortage.

I think we agree on quite a lot @Cucumberino - but there being flaws in how a party is governing is not the same kind of disaster as we would get with a party of racist incompetent liars in charge.

There is also plenty we disagree on - but that’s the joy of democracy, which I also think would be at risk if Trump’s wannabe Farage was in charge here.

Excellent - I hope they do follow through. People on lower incomes should not be priced out of the market and these areas should not simply be playgounds - we need thriving communities all year round.

I hope so to. My own area has at least 6 air b&b with a string of different people coming and going. Its a residential area full of families which is how it should stay. These air b&b owners show zero respect for local residents. One air b&b told a bus company they could park 2 buses in our Street overnight much to the fury of locals. The bus company were induated with complaints from residents about it as there is no spaces for 2 huge buses

No, it is not truly democratic. By accident, not design. Unintended consequence, if you like.

England was always going to get her way. The referendum was flawed in that it did not recognise the potential for a serious split between the UK nations.

I recognise that there is a school of thought that the UK should be One Nation, One Country. Indeed, most WM politicians, civil servants, HoL & the Monarchy use this term. There is also a school of thought that there should be One Europe, One State.

If the UK gets a Reform PM given the FMs of NI, Scotland & perhaps Wales in 2027 then that cannot possibly be "democracy in action".

We need constitutional reform - before independence.

Yes it was democratic - we all had an equal vote and we all heard every side of the debate. More people chose to remain within the UK than didn't.

No. It was not.

Vote was always skewed in favour of the biggest nation.

Try visiting & steer the topic to BREXIT.
And if you already live here, ditto.

I defy you to dare say that you can only find support for how England voted.

Then try that experiment in West Belfast.

The indy referendum was a democratic process.

Why Scotland should become independent.

1. The "Democratic Deficit"

Scotland is often governed by parties it did not vote for.

Voting History: Since 1945, Scotland has only voted for a Conservative majority once (1955), yet has been under Conservative rule for much of that time.

Parliamentary Sovereignty: The UK Parliament retains ultimate power and can undermine or even abolish the Scottish Parliament, as seen with the Internal Market Act which limited devolved powers.

House of Lords: Scotland is partially governed by 764 unelected peers in the House of Lords, a body that has no democratic accountability to the Scottish people.

1. Rejoining the European Union.

62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU but were forced to leave.

Economic Scale: Rejoining the EU would give Scotland access to a single market of over 450 million people—seven times the size of the UK market.

Individual Rights: Independence would restore the right for Scots to live, work, and study across 27 European nations.

Energy Potential: As an EU member, Scotland could become a major exporter of green hydrogen and offshore wind energy to the European market. Scotland is already energy self-sufficient due renewables.

1. Economic Sovereignty (The "Small Nation" Model)

Unionists often argue Scotland is "too small" or "too poor." But compare that argument to similar successful independent nations.

Comparable Success: Countries like Denmark, Ireland, and Norway—which are similar in size to Scotland—consistently outperform the UK on measures like GDP per capita and social equality.

Resource Control: Independence would give Scotland full control over its own revenues, including 96% of the UK’s oil and 63% of its natural gas production, rather than sharing them with Westminster.

Tailored Policy: Instead of a "one-size-fits-all" UK economic model, Scotland could tailor its own tax and investment laws to its specific strengths, such as life sciences and renewable energy.

1. Protecting the Welfare State

Policy Mitigation: The Scottish Government currently spends millions "mitigating" UK policies it disagrees with, such as the two-child benefit cap. Independence would allow these funds to be used for proactive social investment instead of just "fixing" UK-imposed poverty.

Scandinavian Model: Supporters argue independence is the only way to build a high-quality, Scandinavian-style welfare state that prioritizes well-being over austerity.

I voted No, btw in 2014.

But by God, Westminster is testing that.

Why?

Why d'you think.

Johnson. May. Truss. Sunak. ERG. Brexit.
Starmer.
Farage. Anderson. Tice.

SNP by no means perfect: sex identity. Embezzlement.

I keep saying: we need constitutional reform.

Maybe Ruth could forgo her HoL membership & do something, don't care. But God, please - why is it so wrong to ask for an equal say in our future?

I will repeat - the referendum was democratic. You might not have liked the result at the time, you might not like it now - but the process was absolutely democratic.

I agree that constitutional reform is needed, but what that looks like I don't know. Given that we seem to be stuck with a completely useless, ineffectual, corrupt government up here (that was actually made worse by the ridiculous Greens for a while - and may do so again) that has devolved control over so many key areas and is determined to have indy or nothing, it doesn't look like we'll get constitutional reform that will actually benefit us any time soon.

There is no guarantee that we would be accepted back into the EU.

22% is pretty normal for a council by-election

You mean like Peter Murrell?

And the others...

I voted to remain in Uk because I didn’t think the economic case for an independent Scotland stacked up. However I’ve always been open to being persuaded by the economic case and by a really well run Scotland. So far I’ve seen neither and in fact I’ve seen some truly bad examples of how not to run a country!
I’m even less likely to vote for independence now than in 2014

Same here. I consider myself British, am from England originally but have lived here for many years, and have a lot of family in England - I was open to being convinced of the need to vote for independence if the economic case was strong enough and cross border agreements and arrangements for moving between the two countries were set out clearly. Neither were delivered by the SG prior to the referendum, and now that I see the madness that the SNP (and Greens) come out with I thank all the gods the (democratic) referendum went the way it did.

There is no way an Indy Scotland will be able to rejoin the EU. It would have to have an independent currency, then agree to adopting the euro. But to join the euro it’s deficit would have to be under 3% of GDP and the debt would have to be under 60% of GDP, both of which it vastly exceeds. It could try bringing the debt and deficit down but that would take very drastic belt tightening amid a background of already drastic economic hardship.

Scotland would be trying to start as an independent nation whilst loaded with debt. This is a rare place for a country to start from. Let alone one where you have a lot of debt then the Barnett formula takes 15% of your current budget away immediately. And interest on borrowing would soar without the protection of a country backed by the Bank of England’s gold standard credit rating.

The poster above talks of a Scandinavian welfare state. I don’t think Scotland knows what that is or would want that if it did. A Scandinavian welfare state would be much higher taxes on the lower paid - far higher than we have currently. Lower benefits for those not interested in working. Having lived in Scandinavia it’s a model I respect. It really rewards the workers with good benefits if you were to lose your job and good public services etc, but you’re expected to pay into the pot. And the healthcare system isn’t feee. You pay the full cost of prescriptions and pay to see a doctor.

Living in an Indy Scotland would be a very tough financial slog, but some think it would be worth it. I would disagree.

And the ‘too wee too poor’ thing? That was John Swinney who said that. He said unionists think Scotland is too wee and too poor. Unionists said nothing of the sort. Unionists point out economic reality. Economic facts. If he can’t counter that with anything other than making up ‘too wee too poor’ nonsense that’s on him.

The facts are there are no financial upsides to independence. It would be an economic shit show as the SNP know only too well. If that wasn’t the case they’d be shouting it from the rafters, but they’re very very quiet. It always makes me laugh when you see Indy supporters asking for the financial case for Indy so they can publicise it. Do they not realise there isn’t one? Do they not realise people saying how much Scotland benefits from the Union aren’t dastardly unionists publishing lies, wanting to keep Scotland colonised, but rational people publishing facts?

Being part of the UK is like being part of a family. The city of London and the SE of England is one of the worlds biggest economic powerhouses. It generates a massive amount of money, and being part of the family that is the UK means that we are given part of that fortune. Walking away from the UK is walking away from that money. Scotland can vote for that but it should do so in the unblinkered knowledge of exactly what it is doing, not based on the same sort of fairytale lies we had with Brexit.

"Independent Scotland might struggle economically for a while, so I'm just going to stick with the decades-long mismanaged, death-spiralling shambles that is the UK".

Yet another of the myriad examples where everything in a posited Indi Scotland has to be 100% tickety-boo right from day one or it simply isn't feasible, but by comparison it's perfectly OK and acceptable for the actual ongoing reality in the UK to be even worse.

But to join the euro it’s deficit would have to be under 3% of GDP and the debt would have to be under 60% of GDP, both of which it vastly exceeds

Err no. Scotland has no debt. Zero. Not a penny.

The debt you are talking about is entirely UK debt, and since it's convention that when new states achieve independence from parent states, the contiguous state maintains responsibility for the entirety of ongoing historical debt, this is entirely the "rUK"s problem. Of course, any separation agreement would likely see Scotland agreeing to foot a portion of that debt, but to paint it right now as "Scotland's debt" is categorically false, because it isn't, it's UK debt accumulated entirely by UK government.

Not that "joining the Euro" has either been necessary or suggested in the frist place anyway, but nonetheless, the fact remains that "Scotland's debt" stands at 0.

Let alone one where you have a lot of debt then the Barnett formula takes 15% of your current budget away immediately

Let's just gloss over the fact yet again that the money returned to Scotland via Barnett is but a small part of the total revenue Scotland sends to the Exchequer in the first place. So no, Scotland's budget would not be reduced by the loss of Barnett, it would be vastly increased due to retaining 100% of all revenue generated within Scotland in the first place.

This is a rare place for a country to start from

Precisely because contiguous States maintain responsibility for 100% of debt accrued prior to separation. Again, this is entirely the rUK's problem to solve, because short of invading iScotland and removing "UK" assets brick by brick, there isn't really any other means to recover Scotland's "portion" of that debt if Scotland simply says "get bent".

He said unionists think Scotland is too wee and too poor. Unionists said nothing of the sort. Unionists point out economic reality. Economic facts. If he can’t counter that with anything other than making up ‘too wee too poor’ nonsense that’s on him

Difficult to square this with David Cameron himself reiterating that just like other small, Northern European nations, he believed that an iScotland would undoubtedly be a thriving and prosperous State. So there's at least one Unionist whose "economic reality" isn't the bleak picture typically painted by most. Since we're also told by Unionists that it's the Indi lot guilty of ignoring reality, which is it? We're just in agreement with David Cameron.

Out of curiosity, what is it about debt-free, asset-rich, talent-rich, resource-rich Scotland that Unionists are convinced would be an economic catastrophe? You could look across the Irish Sea for an example of a similar nation that has thrived after starting from a far more parochial and disadvantaged position. Why would Ireland, or Finland, or Denmark, or even Iceland thrive, and Scotland fail? Iceland is a curious one. Almost bankrupted by the same banking collapse that hammered the UK, yet Iceland bounced back within a couple of years and the UK is still circling the drain. I wonder what the difference there is?

so you think Scotland would just shake off the UK debt and walk away? Really? Why aren’t the SNP shouting this from the rafters? Wow! The UK’s debt burden is massive. If we’ve got a way to walk away from it, that’s great!

And you think Scotland could join the EU without joining the Euro? Again, that doesn’t happen. It’s a requirement for new members to join. Along with the 3% deficit (Scotland’s is currently running at over 10%, the UK in total at 4.5%) and 60% debt (UK debt is nearly 100%).

Scotland sends a proportion of the taxes it raises to the UK government and the UK government runs reserves services in return. Like defence, foreign affairs, pensions all of the public services such as FCA, DVLA, HMRC etc.

Again, if there’s a good financial case for Indy why is the SNP being so coy?

I'll just point out that the other small northern countries @XDownwiththissortofthingX mentions are known for how well they educate their children. That's largely where talent comes from - actually providing a good education, helping children to reach their potential, rather than the very dumbed-down stuff our children get fed, in classrooms that are constantly disrupted because even very serious behaviour issues (largely SEN related) are ignored. These badly-educated people are supposedly going to be doing all the jobs soon, as the older generations go into retirement. God help us.