I dunno. I can see why she's doing it, but it's a pretty big gamble.
Quebec separatists waited 15 years referendums and fell just short on the second attempt. By a 0.6% swing.
The iron is hot, to let it cool down because you are worried that it would lose shape when you strike it is to entirely miss the point of having a hot iron.
I dunno. I can see why she's doing it, but it's a pretty big gamble.
Quebec separatists waited 15 years referendums and fell just short on the second attempt. By a 0.6% swing.
The iron is hot, to let it cool down because you are worried that it would lose shape when you strike it is to entirely miss the point of having a hot iron.
Theresa Mays top adviser confirmed?
3DS Code- 4700-0094-6364
+3
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
A big part of the argument for Scotland staying in the UK during the last referendum was that an independent Scotland would get kicked out of the EU.
Now, Scotland staying in the UK means they will get kicked out of the EU after explicitly voting to stay in the EU.
This call for a second independence referendum was kind of inevitable.
But since May doesn't want the referendum to happen, what are the odds that it's not gonna happen? And if the Scots go through with the referendum anyway, what can the UK (or England) do about it? Not even going into the referendum's outcome here, but just holding it.
Officially the referendum would have no binding power. But court cases could be made arguing it has power anyway. It's another constitutional crisis to add to the pile.
How? The legal authority to hold a referendum resides in Westminster, I don't see what sort of court case could arise.
The timing of this feels like the SNP wanted it to be rejected.
the snp have been good win win opportunists
get a referendum? were at peak mess, good chance of going thru
get denied? make westminster more unpopular, shore up nats in scotland
A big part of the argument for Scotland staying in the UK during the last referendum was that an independent Scotland would get kicked out of the EU.
Now, Scotland staying in the UK means they will get kicked out of the EU after explicitly voting to stay in the EU.
This call for a second independence referendum was kind of inevitable.
But since May doesn't want the referendum to happen, what are the odds that it's not gonna happen? And if the Scots go through with the referendum anyway, what can the UK (or England) do about it? Not even going into the referendum's outcome here, but just holding it.
Officially the referendum would have no binding power. But court cases could be made arguing it has power anyway. It's another constitutional crisis to add to the pile.
How? The legal authority to hold a referendum resides in Westminster, I don't see what sort of court case could arise.
The timing of this feels like the SNP wanted it to be rejected.
the snp have been good win win opportunists
get a referendum? were at peak mess, good chance of going thru
get denied? make westminster more unpopular, shore up nats in scotland
theyve done this repeatedly, v solid politics
May's going to be only too happy to shore up the SNP in Scotland. If those votes go to anyone else, it'd be to Labour. So long as they don't get gains there, she can focus on a Tory majority south and keep hold of it easily, especially with Jeremy on the other team.
My understanding is that Westminster is between a rock on a hard place on this. They can't actually stop the SNP from holding a referendum. They can deny it legally binding status but if that referendum did turn out 50.1% in favour of yes I really can't see how it's politically viable for them to say no. It would cause an even bigger constitutional crisis than Brexit.
As for Sturgeons timing it seems to be based on the almost certainly false belief that Scotlands current EU membership can be preserved, which it can't. We're out now for certain unless the UK as a whole does a U-Turn which at this point seems extremely unlikely. The best she can hope for is Brexit, Scottish independence, then maybe if the fates are with us and Spain doesn't veto it, some form of fast track membership since we're already 100% EU compliant. Even in that rosy scenario we're looking at most likley a period of years outside both the EU and the UK and utter termoil while we sort out borders. The practicalities of establishing a hard border between England and Scotland after 300 years of union are basically un-doable, the only saving grace is that unlike attempting to do it between NI and RoI is it's less likely to result in a war.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
My understanding is that Westminster is between a rock on a hard place on this. They can't actually stop the SNP from holding a referendum. They can deny it legally binding status but if that referendum did turn out 50.1% in favour of yes I really can't see how it's politically viable for them to say no. It would cause an even bigger constitutional crisis than Brexit.
As for Sturgeons timing it seems to be based on the almost certainly false belief that Scotlands current EU membership can be preserved, which it can't. We're out now for certain unless the UK as a whole does a U-Turn which at this point seems extremely unlikely. The best she can hope for is Brexit, Scottish independence, then maybe if the fates are with us and Spain doesn't veto it, some form of fast track membership since we're already 100% EU compliant. Even in that rosy scenario we're looking at most likley a period of years outside both the EU and the UK and utter termoil while we sort out borders. The practicalities of establishing a hard border between England and Scotland after 300 years of union are basically un-doable, the only saving grace is that unlike attempting to do it between NI and RoI is it's less likely to result in a war.
the level of uncertainty you would see in event of scotland peacing means its impossible to tell what the eu might or might not do
institutionally its fairly trivial for them to reswallow scotland; who knows what sentiment in eu parl will be.
It's very likely that fast track entry to the EU would be granted to Scotland, would probably have to adopt the Euro though. There's also this to consider as well:
The furious resentment with which the Tories seem to regard any attempt to steer the car aware from the cliff, even though most of them know it's heading for a cliff, is amazing.
Since the universe is currently operating in satire mode, I'd expect a second Scottish referendum to get 52% saying leave the UK and in response Westminster earnestly arguing that they can't leave because that would be disregarding the will of the 48%.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited March 2017
one thing i am unsure on is state of eu law in scotland
does scotland accept eu statues via westminster implementation(seems more likely), or does it do its own implementation as well (or only in some cases)?
it would be more complex from a legal point of view if they suddenly had their own separate legal system and had to pass 8 jillion eu laws simply because they no longer had the westminster versions
although i suppose in event of a split they would likely just copy over all the existing westminster legislation as a placeholder, so might be moot
No it needs Scotland's assent for the great repeal act, which enshrines EU law in our books, making the law stuff easier to manage as we leave. So if I understand it, Scotland has the power to veto a bill which will make trading with the EU easier, to annoy Westminster if it doesn't get the Indy2 vote - but without this bill, Scottish law would be incompatible with EU law until it is independent, at which point it can then pass these laws? I'm tying myself up in knots.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
No it needs Scotland's assent for the great repeal act, which enshrines EU law in our books, making the law stuff easier to manage as we leave. So if I understand it, Scotland has the power to veto a bill which will make trading with the EU easier, to annoy Westminster if it doesn't get the Indy2 vote - but without this bill, Scottish law would be incompatible with EU law until it is independent, at which point it can then pass these laws? I'm tying myself up in knots.
yes, Westminster is what would be invoking a50. problem is the subsidiary problems are not inherently linked; it is possible to invoke without implementing eu law, it is possible to invoke with any number of unseen ancillary constitutional fuckups, which Scotland will have veto over. cons are in awkward position here because they don't know what constitutional problems they will hit, because it's all calvinball depending on court judgements that haven't happened yet
My understanding is that Westminster is between a rock on a hard place on this. They can't actually stop the SNP from holding a referendum. They can deny it legally binding status but if that referendum did turn out 50.1% in favour of yes I really can't see how it's politically viable for them to say no. It would cause an even bigger constitutional crisis than Brexit.
As for Sturgeons timing it seems to be based on the almost certainly false belief that Scotlands current EU membership can be preserved, which it can't. We're out now for certain unless the UK as a whole does a U-Turn which at this point seems extremely unlikely. The best she can hope for is Brexit, Scottish independence, then maybe if the fates are with us and Spain doesn't veto it, some form of fast track membership since we're already 100% EU compliant. Even in that rosy scenario we're looking at most likley a period of years outside both the EU and the UK and utter termoil while we sort out borders. The practicalities of establishing a hard border between England and Scotland after 300 years of union are basically un-doable, the only saving grace is that unlike attempting to do it between NI and RoI is it's less likely to result in a war.
No, Sturgeon's timing isn't based on any belief that Scotland's EU membership can be preserved. This has been coming since Theresa May's speech at the Scottish Conservative Conference earlier this month.
It's complicated but it boils down to this: There are a range of policy areas that technically come under the remit of the devolved Scottish government but are currently handled via the EU, things like the Scottish environment, fishing etc. At her speech to the Scottish Conservative Party, Theresa May said she intends for these issues to be handled by Westminster post-Brexit. The SNP were up in arms over it, which they obviously would be; Theresa May basically announced that anything Scotland has a vested interest in that Brussels currently manages is going to Westminster, not to Scotland. That severely undercuts the devolution agreement.
Most commentators have seen this as a power grab by Theresa May, but some have speculated that it may have been a warning to Nicola Sturgeon that unless the devolved government gets supportive of Brexit then their powers will be severely reduced. If that's so then the current situation can be summarised as this:
Theresa May: "Pipe down or I will make you pipe down."
Nicola Sturgeon: "Fine. Make me."
If you think that's a pretty big deal, remember that Northern Ireland have been immersed in their election and haven't taken note of May's speech to the SCC yet, never mind thought through what it means for them.
That only holds water if you believe the SNP wouldn't have pushed for independence if only Holyrood were given control of issues currently controlled by Brussels.
Party management? What? That's... not why they're doing this? They're doing this because May has made public her plans to pull powers that belong in Holyrood to Westminster in key areas like agriculture when Brexit goes through. In a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party. How is that a party management issue? And how else would you expect the SNP to respond?
My understanding is that Westminster is between a rock on a hard place on this. They can't actually stop the SNP from holding a referendum. They can deny it legally binding status but if that referendum did turn out 50.1% in favour of yes I really can't see how it's politically viable for them to say no. It would cause an even bigger constitutional crisis than Brexit.
As for Sturgeons timing it seems to be based on the almost certainly false belief that Scotlands current EU membership can be preserved, which it can't. We're out now for certain unless the UK as a whole does a U-Turn which at this point seems extremely unlikely. The best she can hope for is Brexit, Scottish independence, then maybe if the fates are with us and Spain doesn't veto it, some form of fast track membership since we're already 100% EU compliant. Even in that rosy scenario we're looking at most likley a period of years outside both the EU and the UK and utter termoil while we sort out borders. The practicalities of establishing a hard border between England and Scotland after 300 years of union are basically un-doable, the only saving grace is that unlike attempting to do it between NI and RoI is it's less likely to result in a war.
the level of uncertainty you would see in event of scotland peacing means its impossible to tell what the eu might or might not do
institutionally its fairly trivial for them to reswallow scotland; who knows what sentiment in eu parl will be.
It's obviously extremely difficult to say what the EU would do in this exact scenario as its not something anyone ever thought would come up but it'll be hard for them to roll back the precedent set in 2014 where they said Scotland isn't a member of the EU, the UK is. An independent Scotland would have to reapply. Who knows how easy or difficult that will be but I don't think the scenario where Scotland manages to keep an unbroken line of EU membership is possible.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
yes, the appearance of some kind of reapplication would be there
the question is in practice to what extent they special case it. almost every eu joining exercise is unique. it would b easy for Euro parliament to waive formal requirements on ground of already met, or to allow some kind of transitional Norway like status to bridge the gap until full eu membership. Scotland has advantage of already knowing eu institutions and being an uncontroversial member; Poland and Hungary are not afraid of a tide of Scots
what Eu says it will do is almost never what it actually does. Euro rules exist as negotiation points rather than actual requirements
My understanding is that Westminster is between a rock on a hard place on this. They can't actually stop the SNP from holding a referendum. They can deny it legally binding status but if that referendum did turn out 50.1% in favour of yes I really can't see how it's politically viable for them to say no. It would cause an even bigger constitutional crisis than Brexit.
As for Sturgeons timing it seems to be based on the almost certainly false belief that Scotlands current EU membership can be preserved, which it can't. We're out now for certain unless the UK as a whole does a U-Turn which at this point seems extremely unlikely. The best she can hope for is Brexit, Scottish independence, then maybe if the fates are with us and Spain doesn't veto it, some form of fast track membership since we're already 100% EU compliant. Even in that rosy scenario we're looking at most likley a period of years outside both the EU and the UK and utter termoil while we sort out borders. The practicalities of establishing a hard border between England and Scotland after 300 years of union are basically un-doable, the only saving grace is that unlike attempting to do it between NI and RoI is it's less likely to result in a war.
the level of uncertainty you would see in event of scotland peacing means its impossible to tell what the eu might or might not do
institutionally its fairly trivial for them to reswallow scotland; who knows what sentiment in eu parl will be.
It's obviously extremely difficult to say what the EU would do in this exact scenario as its not something anyone ever thought would come up but it'll be hard for them to roll back the precedent set in 2014 where they said Scotland isn't a member of the EU, the UK is. An independent Scotland would have to reapply. Who knows how easy or difficult that will be but I don't think the scenario where Scotland manages to keep an unbroken line of EU membership is possible.
I'd think bringing Scotland in, with favourable terms, would be HIGHLY in line with the EU's desire to show that leaving the union for no good reason will not be in your interests. Punish England, and reward Scotland. Spain can even be brought on board using the 'Unlike Spain, Englands government has gone insane' argument and the Scots can promise to give a few speeches saying how Catalunia is totally different from them and shouldn't be independent.
In the last referendum, I thought the idea of Scottish independance was insane. The only thing stupider was Brexit. But now that they have Brexit staring them in the face, Scotland is better off in the EU than anchored to Teresa May. Border Complexity be damned.
Party management? What? That's... not why they're doing this? They're doing this because May has made public her plans to pull powers that belong in Holyrood to Westminster in key areas like agriculture when Brexit goes through. In a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party. How is that a party management issue? And how else would you expect the SNP to respond?
If the timing is due to pressure from "Alex Salmond and others", then the timing is a party management issue. If the source is inaccurate, then it isn't.
If the timing is due to backbench pressure, rather than probability of success, then it's not a good look.
Party management? What? That's... not why they're doing this? They're doing this because May has made public her plans to pull powers that belong in Holyrood to Westminster in key areas like agriculture when Brexit goes through. In a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party. How is that a party management issue? And how else would you expect the SNP to respond?
If the timing is due to pressure from "Alex Salmond and others", then the timing is a party management issue. If the source is inaccurate, then it isn't.
If the timing is due to backbench pressure, rather than probability of success, then it's not a good look.
So it was either caused by May planting her flag in Sturgeon's turf or by SNP backbenches putting pressure on the only leader in Britain who has been seen as competent in the wake of Brexit because... who knows. Reasons.
I find one of those things a hell of a lot more likely than the other.
Party management? What? That's... not why they're doing this? They're doing this because May has made public her plans to pull powers that belong in Holyrood to Westminster in key areas like agriculture when Brexit goes through. In a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party. How is that a party management issue? And how else would you expect the SNP to respond?
If the timing is due to pressure from "Alex Salmond and others", then the timing is a party management issue. If the source is inaccurate, then it isn't.
If the timing is due to backbench pressure, rather than probability of success, then it's not a good look.
So it was either caused by May planting her flag in Sturgeon's turf or by SNP backbenches putting pressure on the only leader in Britain who has been seen as competent in the wake of Brexit because... who knows. Reasons.
I find one of those things a hell of a lot more likely than the other.
So it's completely unlikely that in a period when the majority of Scots think "the SNP should stop talking about referendums and get on with the job of governing Scotland", where the leader's popularity has dropped below Ruth Davidson's, and there's unlikely to be another SNP majority in Holyrood, that there would be a certain amount of pressure coming from her party? Only last weekend Alex Salmond was refusing to rule out leading the party for a 3rd term. May turn out to be not the case, it could that the laws coming from Brussels going to Westminster instead of Holyrood (to be returned to Brussels) was the last straw.
I think the SNP have been clever in engineering this so that going back on the "once in a generation" commitment doesn't look as bad as it might, but it absolutely wouldn't surprise me if there's been pressure to get this done sooner than Sturgeon would like.
Party management? What? That's... not why they're doing this? They're doing this because May has made public her plans to pull powers that belong in Holyrood to Westminster in key areas like agriculture when Brexit goes through. In a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party. How is that a party management issue? And how else would you expect the SNP to respond?
If the timing is due to pressure from "Alex Salmond and others", then the timing is a party management issue. If the source is inaccurate, then it isn't.
If the timing is due to backbench pressure, rather than probability of success, then it's not a good look.
So it was either caused by May planting her flag in Sturgeon's turf or by SNP backbenches putting pressure on the only leader in Britain who has been seen as competent in the wake of Brexit because... who knows. Reasons.
I find one of those things a hell of a lot more likely than the other.
So it's completely unlikely that in a period when the majority of Scots think "the SNP should stop talking about referendums and get on with the job of governing Scotland", where the leader's popularity has dropped below Ruth Davidson's, and there's unlikely to be another SNP majority in Holyrood, that there would be a certain amount of pressure coming from her party? Only last weekend Alex Salmond was refusing to rule out leading the party for a 3rd term. May turn out to be not the case, it could that the laws coming from Brussels going to Westminster instead of Holyrood (to be returned to Brussels) was the last straw.
I think the SNP have been clever in engineering this so that going back on the "once in a generation" commitment doesn't look as bad as it might, but it absolutely wouldn't surprise me if there's been pressure to get this done sooner than Sturgeon would like.
Wait what? Davidson hasn't been ahead of Sturgeon in the polls since September of last year. The Ipsos Mori voting intention poll on March 9th of this year had SNP at 46% to the Scottish Conservative's 19%.
So clearly people aren't that pissed off with them, and the most recent opinion poll run Scottish Independence was run by BMG at the end of January, which had the result on a knife edge.
Have a think about everything that's come out in the last two months, even before Theresa May decided to make a power play with less than nothing to back it up. Is there really any reason in the world Sturgeon wouldn't try for a second referendum now?
Salmond coming back to lead the SNP would pretty much guarantee losing my vote. I cannot stand him.
Bleh I don't know what to think of this. Most of the questions the SNP couldn't answer still exist going forward and Sturgeon came out ahead of the triggering of article 50. It's a bloody mess.
Party management? What? That's... not why they're doing this? They're doing this because May has made public her plans to pull powers that belong in Holyrood to Westminster in key areas like agriculture when Brexit goes through. In a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party. How is that a party management issue? And how else would you expect the SNP to respond?
If the timing is due to pressure from "Alex Salmond and others", then the timing is a party management issue. If the source is inaccurate, then it isn't.
If the timing is due to backbench pressure, rather than probability of success, then it's not a good look.
So it was either caused by May planting her flag in Sturgeon's turf or by SNP backbenches putting pressure on the only leader in Britain who has been seen as competent in the wake of Brexit because... who knows. Reasons.
I find one of those things a hell of a lot more likely than the other.
So it's completely unlikely that in a period when the majority of Scots think "the SNP should stop talking about referendums and get on with the job of governing Scotland", where the leader's popularity has dropped below Ruth Davidson's, and there's unlikely to be another SNP majority in Holyrood, that there would be a certain amount of pressure coming from her party? Only last weekend Alex Salmond was refusing to rule out leading the party for a 3rd term. May turn out to be not the case, it could that the laws coming from Brussels going to Westminster instead of Holyrood (to be returned to Brussels) was the last straw.
I think the SNP have been clever in engineering this so that going back on the "once in a generation" commitment doesn't look as bad as it might, but it absolutely wouldn't surprise me if there's been pressure to get this done sooner than Sturgeon would like.
Wait what? Davidson hasn't been ahead of Sturgeon in the polls since September of last year. The Ipsos Mori voting intention poll on March 9th of this year had SNP at 46% to the Scottish Conservative's 19%.
So clearly people aren't that pissed off with them, and the most recent opinion poll run Scottish Independence was run by BMG at the end of January, which had the result on a knife edge.
Have a think about everything that's come out in the last two months, even before Theresa May decided to make a power play with less than nothing to back it up. Is there really any reason in the world Sturgeon wouldn't try for a second referendum now?
Sturgeon doesn't rate as high as her party, with a 20% approval rating compared to 21% for Davidson (last time this direct question was asked in a poll was in September) - I wasn't arguing that the SNP are on the slide, apart from that in 2021 they're unlikely to command a majority. So really this is the only window where a manifesto commitment can be met. But the timing feels weird, and I don't accept Sturgeon's statement that it's to do with the Fisheries and Agriculture laws passing from Brussels to Westminster. Remember leaving the EU made indy2 more likely, then not having access to the single market made it more likely. The only reason to do it now is to either feed on that grievance of not getting a vote when they request it, or to muddy the water by making both options unclear as to what you are voting for. Which makes the idea of 2 years of this utterly depressing.
For the record I think committing to or at least working towards single market access for Scotland would kill the prospects of a second Indyref stone dead
Corbyn backs the Article 50 bill which won't safeguard the rights of EU citizens and then goes outside to protest against the Government to ensure they safeguard the rights of EU citizens.
I mean, come on man. Politics isn't showbiz but think of the fucking optics just once.
Posts
Quebec separatists waited 15 years referendums and fell just short on the second attempt. By a 0.6% swing.
The iron is hot, to let it cool down because you are worried that it would lose shape when you strike it is to entirely miss the point of having a hot iron.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Theresa Mays top adviser confirmed?
the snp have been good win win opportunists
get a referendum? were at peak mess, good chance of going thru
get denied? make westminster more unpopular, shore up nats in scotland
theyve done this repeatedly, v solid politics
May's going to be only too happy to shore up the SNP in Scotland. If those votes go to anyone else, it'd be to Labour. So long as they don't get gains there, she can focus on a Tory majority south and keep hold of it easily, especially with Jeremy on the other team.
As for Sturgeons timing it seems to be based on the almost certainly false belief that Scotlands current EU membership can be preserved, which it can't. We're out now for certain unless the UK as a whole does a U-Turn which at this point seems extremely unlikely. The best she can hope for is Brexit, Scottish independence, then maybe if the fates are with us and Spain doesn't veto it, some form of fast track membership since we're already 100% EU compliant. Even in that rosy scenario we're looking at most likley a period of years outside both the EU and the UK and utter termoil while we sort out borders. The practicalities of establishing a hard border between England and Scotland after 300 years of union are basically un-doable, the only saving grace is that unlike attempting to do it between NI and RoI is it's less likely to result in a war.
the level of uncertainty you would see in event of scotland peacing means its impossible to tell what the eu might or might not do
institutionally its fairly trivial for them to reswallow scotland; who knows what sentiment in eu parl will be.
edit: The Great Repeal Bill will require consent from the Scottish parliament.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
So Westminster needs Scotland's assent?
What if they just say "nah mate"
does scotland accept eu statues via westminster implementation(seems more likely), or does it do its own implementation as well (or only in some cases)?
it would be more complex from a legal point of view if they suddenly had their own separate legal system and had to pass 8 jillion eu laws simply because they no longer had the westminster versions
although i suppose in event of a split they would likely just copy over all the existing westminster legislation as a placeholder, so might be moot
The CTRL+V Act (20XX)
The extant text of the Westminster Puppies and Kitties Act (19XX) is now enshrined in Scottish Law
Find "Westminster" & replace w/ "Holyrood"
No it needs Scotland's assent for the great repeal act, which enshrines EU law in our books, making the law stuff easier to manage as we leave. So if I understand it, Scotland has the power to veto a bill which will make trading with the EU easier, to annoy Westminster if it doesn't get the Indy2 vote - but without this bill, Scottish law would be incompatible with EU law until it is independent, at which point it can then pass these laws? I'm tying myself up in knots.
yes, Westminster is what would be invoking a50. problem is the subsidiary problems are not inherently linked; it is possible to invoke without implementing eu law, it is possible to invoke with any number of unseen ancillary constitutional fuckups, which Scotland will have veto over. cons are in awkward position here because they don't know what constitutional problems they will hit, because it's all calvinball depending on court judgements that haven't happened yet
I was under the impression that the courts had decided this was not the case back when the issue of a A50 bill was judged.
Maybe we shouldn't bother?
No, Sturgeon's timing isn't based on any belief that Scotland's EU membership can be preserved. This has been coming since Theresa May's speech at the Scottish Conservative Conference earlier this month.
It's complicated but it boils down to this: There are a range of policy areas that technically come under the remit of the devolved Scottish government but are currently handled via the EU, things like the Scottish environment, fishing etc. At her speech to the Scottish Conservative Party, Theresa May said she intends for these issues to be handled by Westminster post-Brexit. The SNP were up in arms over it, which they obviously would be; Theresa May basically announced that anything Scotland has a vested interest in that Brussels currently manages is going to Westminster, not to Scotland. That severely undercuts the devolution agreement.
Most commentators have seen this as a power grab by Theresa May, but some have speculated that it may have been a warning to Nicola Sturgeon that unless the devolved government gets supportive of Brexit then their powers will be severely reduced. If that's so then the current situation can be summarised as this:
Theresa May: "Pipe down or I will make you pipe down."
Nicola Sturgeon: "Fine. Make me."
If you think that's a pretty big deal, remember that Northern Ireland have been immersed in their election and haven't taken note of May's speech to the SCC yet, never mind thought through what it means for them.
Also - calling a referendum for party management reasons? Where have we heard that before?
Party management? What? That's... not why they're doing this? They're doing this because May has made public her plans to pull powers that belong in Holyrood to Westminster in key areas like agriculture when Brexit goes through. In a speech to the Scottish Conservative Party. How is that a party management issue? And how else would you expect the SNP to respond?
It's obviously extremely difficult to say what the EU would do in this exact scenario as its not something anyone ever thought would come up but it'll be hard for them to roll back the precedent set in 2014 where they said Scotland isn't a member of the EU, the UK is. An independent Scotland would have to reapply. Who knows how easy or difficult that will be but I don't think the scenario where Scotland manages to keep an unbroken line of EU membership is possible.
the question is in practice to what extent they special case it. almost every eu joining exercise is unique. it would b easy for Euro parliament to waive formal requirements on ground of already met, or to allow some kind of transitional Norway like status to bridge the gap until full eu membership. Scotland has advantage of already knowing eu institutions and being an uncontroversial member; Poland and Hungary are not afraid of a tide of Scots
what Eu says it will do is almost never what it actually does. Euro rules exist as negotiation points rather than actual requirements
I'd think bringing Scotland in, with favourable terms, would be HIGHLY in line with the EU's desire to show that leaving the union for no good reason will not be in your interests. Punish England, and reward Scotland. Spain can even be brought on board using the 'Unlike Spain, Englands government has gone insane' argument and the Scots can promise to give a few speeches saying how Catalunia is totally different from them and shouldn't be independent.
In the last referendum, I thought the idea of Scottish independance was insane. The only thing stupider was Brexit. But now that they have Brexit staring them in the face, Scotland is better off in the EU than anchored to Teresa May. Border Complexity be damned.
If the timing is due to pressure from "Alex Salmond and others", then the timing is a party management issue. If the source is inaccurate, then it isn't.
If the timing is due to backbench pressure, rather than probability of success, then it's not a good look.
So it was either caused by May planting her flag in Sturgeon's turf or by SNP backbenches putting pressure on the only leader in Britain who has been seen as competent in the wake of Brexit because... who knows. Reasons.
I find one of those things a hell of a lot more likely than the other.
Just FYI, Salmond is denying this claim:
So it's completely unlikely that in a period when the majority of Scots think "the SNP should stop talking about referendums and get on with the job of governing Scotland", where the leader's popularity has dropped below Ruth Davidson's, and there's unlikely to be another SNP majority in Holyrood, that there would be a certain amount of pressure coming from her party? Only last weekend Alex Salmond was refusing to rule out leading the party for a 3rd term. May turn out to be not the case, it could that the laws coming from Brussels going to Westminster instead of Holyrood (to be returned to Brussels) was the last straw.
I think the SNP have been clever in engineering this so that going back on the "once in a generation" commitment doesn't look as bad as it might, but it absolutely wouldn't surprise me if there's been pressure to get this done sooner than Sturgeon would like.
In some polls Davidson betters Sturgeon on "Do you think x is doing a good job" which is a very different question.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Wait what? Davidson hasn't been ahead of Sturgeon in the polls since September of last year. The Ipsos Mori voting intention poll on March 9th of this year had SNP at 46% to the Scottish Conservative's 19%.
So clearly people aren't that pissed off with them, and the most recent opinion poll run Scottish Independence was run by BMG at the end of January, which had the result on a knife edge.
Have a think about everything that's come out in the last two months, even before Theresa May decided to make a power play with less than nothing to back it up. Is there really any reason in the world Sturgeon wouldn't try for a second referendum now?
Bleh I don't know what to think of this. Most of the questions the SNP couldn't answer still exist going forward and Sturgeon came out ahead of the triggering of article 50. It's a bloody mess.
So overtly so that i wonder if she was caught totally unprepared and without a planned line on what the Tory response was going to be
Sturgeon doesn't rate as high as her party, with a 20% approval rating compared to 21% for Davidson (last time this direct question was asked in a poll was in September) - I wasn't arguing that the SNP are on the slide, apart from that in 2021 they're unlikely to command a majority. So really this is the only window where a manifesto commitment can be met. But the timing feels weird, and I don't accept Sturgeon's statement that it's to do with the Fisheries and Agriculture laws passing from Brussels to Westminster. Remember leaving the EU made indy2 more likely, then not having access to the single market made it more likely. The only reason to do it now is to either feed on that grievance of not getting a vote when they request it, or to muddy the water by making both options unclear as to what you are voting for. Which makes the idea of 2 years of this utterly depressing.
Westminster has shown no inclination to do anything to moderate its own brexit desires in the interests of Scotland, NI, or the remain voting areas
If you're in government, in Scotland, and nothing else has worked to moderate the impact of brexit, there's no other card to play
I mean, come on man. Politics isn't showbiz but think of the fucking optics just once.