Fyi, In the description it says "Scotts went to the polls". It should be "Scots", unless you are referring to multiple people named Scott going to the polls.
"People could have voted for SNP/Greens but not want indyref2" - Yes correct that could be the case but that argument can be turned around as I know Labour voters who want indyref2 and independence so it works both ways.
The SNP have always been clear that a vote for them is a vote for independence just like a vote for SF is one for a united Ireland ASAP. Any Scot who is ardently against a break up of the UK should not vote SNP. In England if you wanted Brexit ‘done’ you voted Tory in 2019. If you were against Brexit you could vote LibDem even if such votes are under FPTP really a waste of a vote.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 I suppose you could argue that some people who are neutral to independence and voted for SNP as in people who don't really mind the idea but haven't made their mind up. I for one generally vote for someone who helps my constituency but not for the party at times some people could do that as well here
As always you can't trust a Tory about anything. Remember that the Tories are the Conservative and Unionist Party, so they'll grasp at any straw to avoid, or at least postpone, the inevitable Scottish departure from the Union.
The vote swing in the regional vote was from the the SNP to the Greens, not from the SNP to Alba: the SNP's vote share decreased by 1.4%, while the Greens' vote share increased by 1.5%.
Not much in that, really. If anything, there was a lot of online talk (reflected in polling) about SNP constitiency/Green list tactical voting, as a way of maximising the number of pro-independence MSPs, which in reality failed to materialise. It's still decent progress for the Greens but is short of what some polls had projected them to get.
Greens co-leader was asked about their voters independence only being at 43% and they actually proved otherwise. Also, getting a majority in Scotland is unbelievably hard to get, 64 seats is a absolute thrashing.
Yeah, system that Scotland uses basically guarantees that no party gets a majority (exceptions happen, tho), because more you win contituency seats, harder it is to get regional seats. It encourages coalition building, and SNP/Greens alliance is very close. They don't agree on everything, but they also don't *disagree* on red line policies. Quite frankly, one short of majority would be considered CRUSHING victory in any other parliament that uses proportional system. Merkels party only has 30% of the seats, Macron runs at 40% (IIRC) and SDP in Finland has 31%.
Also i would find it hilarious if the vote leave won 51.9% to remain 48.1%. and then all the brexiteers in Westminster start saying thats not a clear enough margin
@@yurinaytar3023 last time round i was very much against Scotland leaving. Then when the referendum results came in for brexit i understood for the first time how Scotland must feel being dragged about by the clout of England. If they leave i wish them all the best
I like how they use the Libdems as the example for the smaller parties that would benefit from list votes when they ended up losing their list seats lol.
@@thelightsilent There are decent minimum wages in western european members of the EU. Some are higher than the UK. I don't see how we will suddenly be trapped in flats in Scotland if we rejoined the EU when it didn't happen all these decades we were in EU. This makes no sense.
Couple of points - neither Scotland nor Wales have Assemblies as of 2019. They are both Parliaments (though the Welsh one is more commonly refered to as the Senedd). It's also important to note that due to the voting system it is nearly impossible to get a majority in either of those parliaments.
Scotland and Wales managed to make MMP bad. For a start, there's more constituencies than list MSPs/MSs so you can still win a majority with constituencies which defeats the point of PR. Also, the list voted are assigned regionally, not nationally. Proportionally, Welsh labour would have got 22 seats, (they'd actually get 27 because they won 27 constituencies) the tories would get 15, plaid cymru 12, 3 each for the greens and the lib Dems and 2 for AWAP. This would bring the senned to 62 seats because labour won more constituencies than the regional vote entitled them to.
The Scottish Greens are a different party to GPEW, with entirely different policies. The logo for GPEW is consistently used in this video in place of that of SGP.
@@ptonpc the video acknowledges that for branches of the parties with different logos, i.e. Scottish Tories have a different logo to the Tories. That's fine. The Scottish Greens are an *entirely different party* to the Green Party of England and Wales. It is damaging to our reputation to conflate us with a party which we disagree with on a number of key policy areas.
@@elliegomersall2981 I am not from the UK so you pointing out the difference between the GPEW and SGP is informative for me. That being said didn't they show the logo for Scottish Tories in this video as the same as the standard English Tories? They showed the tree logo instead of the X for the Scottish Conservatives. I maybe wrong though...
It was a wheeze introduced by Tony Blair supposedly to ensure proportional representation. But since he refused a similar system for the UK as a whole, his agenda was twofold; prevent the SNP getting a majority in Scotland despite getting a higher percentage of the votes in Scotland than Labour got in the UK and ensuring with FPTP that Labour continue to benefit from the bias FPTP gives to Labour.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 And now we are stuck with FPTP so Labours current odds of a win bank entirely on a very unlikely coalition. Labour at this point would likely gain from FPTP in the long run, albeit having coalitions with the Green Party or Lib Dems.
For one party to govern for 4 terms and to reach the amount of seats that they have, specifically within an AMS voting system, is a much bigger achievement than a lot of people are giving them credit for. Both the SNP and Greens increased their vote share. For a bit of context, the SNP getting 62 out of 73 constituency seats that would translate as 85% of those constituency seats the equivalent to winning 552 seats out of 650 at Westminster using a FPTP system. For the Conservatives to say they do not have a mandate to fulfill their manifesto pledges is laughable considering David Cameron delivered the EU referendum with just under 37% of the vote share. As an aside; It was a particularly terrible night for the Lib Dems, who failed to reach 5 seats, which limits their role in parliament as they are no longer seen as a major party.
5:04 Not supporting Scotland independence doesn't mean not supporting a referendum on the matter. One can support a referendum as a way to settle the issue and still vote against independence. LE: Thanks for @isaacw175 for pointing it out, but that 43% of Green voters supporting independence is wrong. Lord Ashcroft finds that 43% of those voting with the Greens in the Constituency vote would support independence, but 68% of those voting with the Greens on the List (Regional) vote. But when it comes to what people think of the parties, the List vote is the one that matters as the Constituency vote is much more affected by the candidates themselves and tactical voting. And this is so obvious from the results of this elections as the Greens got 1.3% of the Constituency vote and 8.1% of the List vote. So saying that 43% of Greens support independence is like ignoring 80% of the Green voters.
@@Capt.Thunder The main argument is that Brexit changed the stage, one of the major issues brought up in the 2014 vote was access and membership in the EU which was revoked by English voters in 2016, while the Scottish vote was largely pro-EU
@@ryledra6372 ah yes, because Wales didn’t vote in majority for brexit and absolutely no Scottish voters voted for brexit either. Just the English, according to you.
If it is true that the Scottish Green Party had the referendum in their manifesto, then the referendum has a clear parliament majority. There's no doubt about that.
Also the Lord Ashcroft poll is so misleading. It actually found that 68% of List Green voters support independence, where they won all of their seats, but only 43% of constituency voters support independence, where they won nothing.
Michael Gove trotted out onto Sky News to argue that it wasn't legitimate as a majority of Scots didn't vote for pro-independence parties. Ridiculously hypocritical how is this not being called out?
Seems weird to me since the independence parties did get more than 50% of the regional vote and probably the constituency. But the seat distribution is not very well done and unequal. But his argument might be right since a lot of Green Party voters voted for them because of climate change and not Scottish independence referendum. If a another referendum were to be passed it will probably be super close.
@@frederikjrgensen252 Agree but I also know people who voted for the Tories not for Brexit but because it wasn't Corbyn. It's just hypocritical to argue that 'oh you voted for the Tories, you MUST want Brexit and Voter ID' but contest it when it's Scotland. I agree with you but yeah just proves both parties will always just seek their own self-interest above democratic principles
@@JC-vl9sq I agree. Plurality based systems simply aren't as democratic as proportional systems. Unfortunately, the two big parties that the political system keeps in power have no incentive to change it
It's not inconsistent to think that the unionists could win it in the short term but that, in the long term, holding another referendum would galvanize the pro-independence forces and make it more likely to happen eventually. That is their experience from 2014 - they were on the winning side but it was a hollow victory. In such circumstances, unionists probably still wouldn't want a vote. They have to win every time but the nationalists only have to win once. So why would they want to keep having referendums?
I am a unionist and I would be very sad to see Scotland leave the UK. But I strongly support the right to self-determination, and it would be wrong to force the Scots to remain part of the UK against their will.
True. A union must always be voluntary. I don't want the union to collapse but I certainly wont stand in the way of the will of the people of Scotland as long as all the promises made are kept
@thecazigan28 The last I checked, there are proposals for a Scottish Defence Force. It would be generally be a lighter organisation but would not be that different than what is already here. So yes, I think you would be right.
As a former unionist I've been pushed over to supporting independence due to the blatant hypocrisy from tories regarding what constitutes the will of the people. The reasonable position is to not support independence but vote against it in a referendum. If this were the case I would have voted no again.
The problem is that, despite the seats, the vote share is extremely split. 50.4% of the vote was for unionists in the constituency vote but 50.1% of the regional vote went to pro indy parties.
@@KelticStingray right but that argument doesn't swing in one direction as shown by lord ashcroft's polling. The best indication we have is the party vote share even though, as you suggested, it is not completely reliable.
@@DB-ux9lu exactly. I'm sick of polls. We've just had a nationwide poll. Let's now vote on this binary issue and get on with the day job. I'm sick of people arguing against having a vote rather than just voting against it.
@@KelticStingray yes I reckon I agree with that. I myself am a Unionist but at this point I think a referendum is needed. Politics in Scotland is totally broken until the question is answered. I suppose the main problem people have with it though is that they feel it won't be the end of the debate, just like what happened in and after 2014.
No, no we didn't, we voted to remain for many different reasons, Europe as far I remember wasn't the main reason for most of the people that voted to remain. The main reason was the prospect of separating from a political and monetary union that has had hundreds of years to work towards very tight integration, many people just didn't want the hassle or the drama. And regardless of how you feel about the situation, it was the right call for the time, as since 2014 North-sea oil has tanked, the hospitality and tourism sectors have been non-existent for a year and a half, (both sectors that the SNP were touting as large income sectors after independence)...We would have been independent right now (probably still using the pound) with no European membership as it takes many years, while our two biggest income-generating sectors have dried up, and using a currency that we could not "borrow" in any shape or form for bailouts and COVID grants, and to top it of we wouldn't have had access to the UK vaccine rollout. The nationalists should be thankful they lost Indyref 1 as it would have made them look very, very bad at this point in time.
@@ChimpyChamp One of the major reasons had been the promise of continued EU membership and "The Vow" Let's not forget the dirty tactics used by No. On the other hand I see you are a unionist so will deny everything.
@@ptonpc Yes of course it was A reason, but it wasn't the whole story, was it?...clearly evident by the fact that even now the number of people supporting independence hasn't shot up dramatically after Brexit, it's still around the same numbers as it has been since before Brexit.
@@ChimpyChamp I think almost every person (9/10 maybe) I talked to who voted no in indy ref did so because of the EU issue and have since changed their opinions since brexit.
Just pointing this out if Scottish votes went like England the first past the post method, the SNP would've won 109 out of the 129 seats so if people say theres not a majority for independence they're just shitting themselves.
If you look at the actual vote share rather than the seats gained though it stands as good a ground as all recent polling which flip flops majority yes and no back and forth. Pro Unionists won a majority of the constituency votes. Pro independence won a majority of the regional. We can't indicate what the Scottish people truly want because of how borderline it is.
If the Scottish voting system was the same as in England (only constituency votes), the SNP would have had an insane majority. 64 seats is a landslide win in this system, especially considering tactical voting by unionists and that many young people (who are much more likely to support independence) don't actually vote in the elections.
@@229andymon no, but, you see, you’ve got to look at the vote percentages! Their system is broken and manipulable! (Hastily covers up vote percentages for the Commons)
Getting a majority in a PR system is supposed to be nearly impossible and the fact that they were 1 away is an incredible performance. Good luck Scotland, your future is in your hands 💙🏴💙
@@aubs400 there are many forms of PR. The one the Lib Dems called for in the 80s, when they were called the SDP/Liberal alliance, is called STV - not “PR”.
It's really not supposed to be nearly impossible. It's supposed to reflect vote share. If a party can command the support of an overall majority of voters, they can easily get a majority.
also important to note, the Scottish Parliament is designed to prevent a majority, the whole "SNP must win a majority" thing was goalpost moving by unionists, I also think your underestimating just how poorly DRoss performed, it wasn't entirely Johnson's shite job at running the uk
31 seats in Holyrood is the Tories' joint best-ever performance. I don't like the man, in spite of being a unionist he didn't run a campaign that appealed to me. But, electorally, he did what he set out to achieve. Tories are never going to get much more than 25% in Scotland, and he got near to that ceiling.
@@sausagejockyGaming “you didn’t win a majority in a system specifically designed so no party should win a majority, obviously people reject your message” but when Boris wins with a smaller percentage of the vote it’s a clear mandate that people want to get Brexit done? Fucking weird that.
Tories win a majority in parliament with 42% of the total votes "This means that the people want our brexit deal" Scotish independence parties win a majority in the parliament and the total votes.... Tories "Well that does not mean that the majority of people want scottish independence"
But there was both a Scottish and a Brexit referendum and in both cases the majority won from a massive turnout. To try and argue against that quite frankly is insane.
I'm English and broadly right wing but in the last 5 years my view on the union has shifted from apathy to anti unionism. I just don't see the point in trying to hold it together anymore. We would all 've better off without it. The English get a large portion of their tax burden lifted, the Scottish and Welsh get complete self determination and the Irish either get an independent Ulster or a Irish union
I respect the English people enough to know that you are a fair and decent people that would never agree to a Scotland kept in the union against our will. Your PM does not speak for you in that regard. But.... if you're banking on an Indy Scotland dividend, I reckon you're in for a disappointment. Those Scottish "handouts" are unionist smoke and mirrors - but hey, that will be our issue, not yours.
@@229andymon doesn't scotland take 4x the benefits per person compared to England? I do certainly know that at least in 2017 England was the only part of the union in a financial surplus rather than deficit.
@@flaviusbelisarius7517 no it doesn’t. And England isn’t in surplus the SE is. The rest of the UK is, according to the way the Brits calculate things, baled out by the SE. I don’t believe that, and ask 3 questions of you. 1. Does that spell success to you if true? 2. If true should it not be changed? 3. Why are unionists the only ones supporting the Barnett system that underpins it. Why is Westminster so keen to hold onto a Scottish liability? Brit altruism? Yeah....
To point out, you said the SNP were "denied a majority" due to being 1 seat short. The Scottish parliament is actually designed to not have a majority and to encourage cross-party politics. When the SNP won a majority before, this was very improbable. So the fact the SNP are 1 away from a majority is still an overwhelming victory for the party.
He really is, isn’t he. I don’t like Tories but at least former Tory leaders like David McLetchie and Annabel Goldie came across as functioning human beings. Ross is a slug.
The best case for an independent Scotland is not ‘leave the UK and join the EU’, it is ‘the future of Scotland should be decided by Scots’. An independent Scotland doesn’t have to rejoin the EU, rather, the decision should be made by the Scots. An independent Scotland could vote out SNP in the Holyrood at anytime. however, if them decide to stay in the union, they would never get rid of the tories in the Westminster, even they want to. They are simply outnumbered. They will always be forced into doing something against their will. It’s still hard to believe Tony Blair is the only guy who is not a Tory and born in the past 100 years that has won a GE in the UK . And Tories have not won Scotland in GEs for a very, very long time.
That Lord ashcroft poll which said only 45% of green voters supportered independence was only of the constituencies the greens stood in last time which was only 3. They stood in 12 this time. If you look at evidence of regional voters and also membership it shows a large majority of independence support in the party, and they did have indy ref 2 in their manifesto which people voted for.
The scottish election the main topic was independence. A voter saying they didn't vote along that and didn't care has to be a bit full of it. It's like an American saying they vote for trump yet act oblivious when he did tax cuts for the rich
@@wile123456 I don't believe that for 2 reasons, firstly most people don't read manifestos and secondly, most scots don't want independence but they do want the SNP to represent them in Great Britain. The SNP know this but keep saying that the Scottish people voted for independence which is pretty demeaning to the Scottish voters.
@@thelightsilent The pound used to be worth a lot more than the Euro. Now it's not. Ireland used to be a shithole when it was part of the UK. Now it's doing a lot better than the UK. The UK is taking Scotland's money and then giving part of it back. Scotland might not get that 80% from the UK anymore, but the UK won't take it from Scotland in the first place.
@@thelightsilent EU pays tons of funding to the poorer countries in the union, because they want to equalize economies to better facilitate trade and avoid exploitation. The Euro isn't worthless. It's doing a fuck ton better than the brtiish pound which has been in free fall since brexit lmao. I enjoyed buying everything at a 20% discount before brexit left the union completly, the currency was so low but prices were the same, so a little personal benifit for a European like me over brexit. Also you just say "soviet life style" when the EU was the opposite of the society union and its economic model. You're full of shit.
@@commanderdon4300 it's been all over the media there. All debates on TV has talked about independence. You have to be a special kind of moronic voter to not realize their goal lmao.
Seems like a bad idea That would likely over time boost support for leaving the UK were as now in poll I've seen saying it's over it about 55%-56% better for unionistis if you have one were it predicted to be 55% than 60-70% if your hoping to turn that around and settle the question for a bit
That will be a gift for the SNP who are prepared to go to court. They can shout tyranny and have a wipe out in the next elections. Johnson will have to cave and take the risk of independence referendum or he will resign before so he doesn’t become the PM who destroyed the union.
I wasn't sure if he'd simply got the Conservative and Labour coloured incorrectly - but yes, checked the numbers and it is just the constituency on the two charts that's wrong.
I hope so. It's crazy the atrocities that are happening against protestors there and how the USA and CIA back up the fascists military and delegitimizes a fair election, just because the huge winner is a socialist.
@@RafaelW8 There have been lots of protests starting on the 28th of April that turned violent due to the government raising tax for the poorer people. Even though the government pull back the protests have continued and there isn't any food or petrol going into the cities while some people are taking it onto themselves to be vigilantes and killing people at night.
1:13 It's the Additional Member System, not the Alternative Members System. I think your confusing it with the Alternative Vote which is a completely different electoral system.
Voting system designed to stop majority, yet SNP and Lab both being able to come within 1 seat of it. No wonder the union is on the path to splitting when left or center-left regional governments are popular with their people, but get their wings clipped by the tories for a decade
@James Clarke Let's see, there is the Internal Markets bill transferring powers to Westminster. The furlough extension which the UK govt didn't allow for until England needed to go into lockdown. Insisting that there is no mandate for IndyRef 2. Boris rejecting invitations to hold regular talks with Welsh and Scottish governments over Covid response. And if you look up voting records of senior Conservative MPs, they generally vote against devolutionary measures. It is quite surprising I have to explain this.
@James Clarke Don't mean to be patronising, but this is easy to find with resources like "They Work For You" - a website the allows you to see MPs voting record grouped by subject. Some might have good reasons to vote against specific bills, but Johnson for example is 0-24 against more powers to the Scottish Parliament and 0-18 against powers to the Welsh Senedd. Some of those might be duplicate, Internal Markers for example is on both lists, but it is a consistent theme across most Tory MPs to vote against further devolution or transfer of power to Scottish and Welsh parliaments. The problem with devolution as it stands is that the regional governments have limited powers in regards to taxation and large parts of fiscal policy. Makes it difficult to tell who is responsible for failures and successes (pretty sure SNP took credit for things they had little to do with and vice versa). But since countries like Ireland, Belgium or Netherlands exist and a prosperous with a relatively small area and population compared to their neighbours, it seems likely an independent Scotland or Wales would manage. I've moved quite a bit over the last decade and always voted tactically for whichever left-leaning party had the best chance at getting the seat. Last week I've split my vote between Labour for the constituency and Plaid for the region (I live in south Wales).
@James Clarke fair enough, I don't know what the right solution is to be honest. I'd like to think that we're stronger as unions (taking UK, USA, EU as different examples of unions, not countries). Perhaps this union of ours can be saved with more direct, open and local government under a federation/republic/union of micro nations (what is England likely splitting into anything from 3 to 10 such mini-states like Cornwall, London etc) . But I am not seeing much evidence of the Tories pushing for such things, as such Scottish and Welsh independence from the UK, with the potential of forming or joining a different, more fair and balanced union does seem like an alternative worth perusing.
@James Clarke Yup I'm with you there, the bigger and more complex the society, the more like it is to fracture along some arbitrary lines. We've got a north/south divide in Wales too, it's tame now but I'm sure it'd surface to the top within a few decades of independence if we ever got it lol. Independence for Scotland is probably inevitable, SNP will force indyref2, it will be again close to a 50/50 result. People on both sides will get more hardened in their views through the campaign for it. Even if the result is to stay as a union then either we go for a federal/republic system or I expect indyref3 in the 2030s 🤦♀️. Anyway, I also wanted to say thank you, it's quite rare these days to have an encounter in the YT comment section with someone who is not in the exact same political camp and for that to be an informative and civil discussion. All the best 😃
It’s worth noting that a federal option was floated in the late 90s as an alternative to devolution but was dismissed as too radical. It’s only with the talk of independence that it’s surfaced as a more moderate option. Meaning even if federal is anyone’s preferred option, it wouldn’t have been on the table without the independence debate. I don’t really mind either way, a true federal system (possibly with English regions splitting to have populations closer to Scotland and Wales) could indeed work well. The real question is whether it’s likely to actually truly happen, or if it would get watered down similar to how the “maximum devolution” promises in Indyref1 were watered down to just a few extra taxation powers. I’ve got a number of friends who’d be happy with a (con)federal option but don’t believe it would happen directly, and some even see the most likely route to federalism as being through independence. Such as possibly forming a federal New Act of Union later once everyone is equals at the bargaining table again. (This also assumes some NI reunification referendum in the next decade or two.) Edit: paragraphs
If Scotland and Wales are so subsidised by England, why are English politicians so keen for them to stay a part of the UK? Have you ever known a conservative to choose the option which leaves them with less money?
You could repeat this process endlessly until a country is left with just the wealthiest area... typically the capital city. And then there is no country left, just an isolated city that it turns out is dependent on support from the rest of the nation. A country's power comes from control over its land, human resources, manpower for military, different natural resources (water, lumber, oil, minerals) dispersed through its regions, agricultural output (dispersed). Simply looking at the flow of subsidy simplifies things too much.
because of the landmass i guess, the populations of scotland and wales put together are still less than those who live in london alone, so its not for money reasons, in fact only 2.5 million scots pay tax out of the 5.5 million population.
@@JollyOldCanuck no , they dont want the nuke subs there and i guess all the jobs they provide scotland, no problem england will move it all to portsmouth or wales ! oil, no good anymore .very expensive to extract and refine, and we are all moving away from fossil fuel so no oil revenue for scotland if independent and if they rejoin the e.u they wont let them use it anyway but there is plenty of wind coming out of sturgeon to power the wind farms in scotland .
There are a few things wrong with this video that need correcting: 1:07 - They aren't "national assemblies", they're both parliaments. 1:15 - It's an Additional Member System, not Alternative Member System. 6:09 - It says "MSPs" on the graphic, but they're actually "MSs" 6:28 - It's not the "Welsh Assembly" anymore - it's now "Senedd Cymru" or the Welsh Parliament. 6:36 - The last election was in 2016, not 2017.
On top of that, they got the graphs the wrong way round for Dumbarton and Dumfriesshire, and said the Lib Dems benefit from the list vote, which they didn't and by and large haven't for a while. I follow this channel mainly for insights into politics down south, now I'm wondering if it's this badly researched all the time.
As an American outsider looking in British politics I’m baffled by a couple of things. One, why wouldn’t a Scottish or Welsch referendum require a super majority of the votes in order to breakaway from the Union, perhaps 60% or 2/3 majority? And two, why would England recognize such a referendum to breakaway from the Union in the first place? After all, in the case of Spain, Catalonia did vote in a referendum for independence but was not recognized by Madrid and the Catalan politicians were even held criminally responsible in their attempt to leave Spain.
I expect that the SNP and Scottish green party can form some kind of coalition that will fight hard to get that referendum. It is hard to argue that a majority in a parliament can't ask their constituents what they want in the form of a referendum. I just don't think it will happen soon as the Westminster government does not seem likely to allow them to any time soon.
Well to be fair the last referendum was only a few years ago, when it was meant to be once in a lifetime, an on that reasoning , couldn't the SNP ask for a referendum every single year , if pro indy ref 2 parties are in a majority
@@gerlofprins7509 Right but Scotland would not be allowed into the EU, as Spain have said they would veto it, i think everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter, but why would u be against Westminster having say in Scottish politics but not the mostly unelected leaders in brussels, especially if your thinking about the effect on the economy, as Scotland does far more trade to other parts of the UK than Europe. Also if Scotland did become independent, the Orkney and Shetland islands would leave scotalnd.
@@thelightsilent you think Scotland has an 80% budget deficit? That's ridiculous, and attitudes like yours is what makes a lot of Scots want to leave the UK.
Saying there's no mandate for another referendum in Scotland because the SNP came 1 seat short of a majority, in a voting system designed to avoid one party government, is so fishy. I don't know why unionists even go there, especially MPs elected in FPTP.
There's no mandate because they had their referendum 7 years ago and lost. They said it was a once in a generation vote. It was the SNP who said a majority would give them a new mandate - so now they have failed, the unionists naturally say they don't have one
@@juliantheapostate8295 But one seat short in a system designed to avoid majorities? It's so pedantic and antagonistic, adds credibility to the notion that the union is no longer one of consent. Besides, it's almost a distraction given that there's a pro referendum majority at holyrood now with the Scottish Greens. To imply all the pro independence msps need to be from the same party or there's no mandate is absurd.
For now, the Labour Party seem to have very successfully forged a separate Welsh identity, which somewhat insulates them from electoral struggles elsewhere, without pushing the region/nation/principality towards independence.
I know this might be a naive look on things but still. If you make an argument that voters don't want something then what's the problem in letting them vote on this issue?? - if you are telling the truth there shouldn't be any
We all saw what happened with the Brexit referendum: Cameron called it to show once and for all that no-one wants it, but people voted for it. Now people don't want to call referenda unless they're sure of the result being in their favour.
@@tomaszzalewski4541 You're right. It is hypocrisy. Just wait a bit and some tories and unionists will most likely be replying to you telling you why it Scotland should not be independent.
The way the Scottish Parliament system allocates seats to opposition parties you kind of have to have overwhelming support to hold a near-absolute majority. I wouldn’t underestimate support for independence at this point.
@@envysart797 The fact that they are simply not Tory and Labour is also a pretty key part of their appeal - they were by far the most popular party in 2014 but still lost the referendum
@@juliantheapostate8295 you’re assuming every Tory and Labour voter doesn’t want independence. Many vote for them simply because they are not the SNP. Argument goes both ways.
Thats the English Green Party logo, you've used pal. They're 2 independent parties , ompletely separate. As opposed to Labour, tory and libdem who's scottish parties are representations of Westminster in Scotland.
I am not sure about the swing to Alba from SNP... I voted SNP/Green due to the way the regional vote works, SNP has a massive constituency vote so they aren't as compensated in the regional like the Greens are, for example. I voted green because of my support for independence but also to give a party with more environmental focus a chance to be heard. This is a massive positive of the Scottish system, no matter your preferred party, the whole idea is to not easily get a majority and instead the makeup of the parliament actually reflects the vote share (to a degree, of course).
Even TLDR News seems to not understand democracy and the difference between a parliamentary election and a referendum. It's not for one individual to decide whether or not indyref2 should happen, it's all the Scots together who decide by electing parliamentary representatives. In the current Scottish political system, whether an indyref2 will be held or not is decided by a vote in parliament; if a majority of msp's vote in favour, then indyref2 must be held. In a parliamentary election, it's the amount of seats that are taken in to account and not the percentages. That's the major difference with a referendum, where solely the percentages are taken in to account. In other words, legislating for indyref2 is not equal to the outcome of voting in indyref2. Because, as stated in the video, you can't know for sure whether all voters for indy parties are for independence or not, and whether all voters for unionist parties are against independence or not. That question can only be answered in a referendum.
The SNP lost. 54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. EU officials just came out yesterday and said that it would take about 15 years for Scotland to join. Scotland's economy will be worse off about 6x by leaving the UK, *AND* studies have shown that joining the EU will not help. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however. A very interesting thread on Twitter: "There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9 The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9 In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9 ... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9 A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9 But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9 So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9 Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9 In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
@@jamiewatson9264 did Tony Blair win his landslide? What about Boris Johnson and his current seat count, did he win? If the answer to either of those is yes, the SNP won a landslide.
@@francescopapa3511 Fun fact. Due to EVEL, Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on English matters even if they affect the other nations, such as funding the NHS.
In Switzerland, they have at least four referendums a year so the concept of a 'Once in a lifetime referendum doesn't really bode well when you think that the UK has had three general elections in five years. In fact, did anybody actually say 'Once in a lifetime referendum'? Maybe the UK needs more practice at referendums, as I think one person one vote is a lot more democratic than the first past the post system.
Referenda were explicitly constitutionally disallowed for a very long time in the UK, it was altered to allow the referendum for joining the EU in the first place. As such, they are culturally seen as something very big and special and risky to do. Personally, I’d like to see an independent Scotland holding many more referenda, much like Switzerland does.
@@jacobbarnett2656 freedom, complete control of our own contry, not have to worry about the fact that London alone can out vote all of Scotland like in brexit, the vast majority of Scotland voted to stay in the eu, all it took was a majority of London to want to leave and our entire country was forced out against our will
@@kierancraig7380 So... the Scottish want to leave and rejoin the EU even though 60% of trade is with the UK meaning if they left they’d have to pay a significant amount of tariffs to have stuff across the border as the current Scottish economy is dependent on it.
@@jacobbarnett2656 not necessarily, there are exceptions to the EUs hardborder rule such as the Republic of ireland and northern Ireland (one is in the eu and the other isn't) but they have no hard border and trade freely with each other thanks to the good Friday agreement
@@kierancraig7380 That’s something that’s still heavily disputed once Britain left the EU as neither side was willing to adjust their restrictions for the other leading to a economic crisis in Ireland.
*2014* 🏴: please don’t leave, Scotland. We promise we’ll stay in the EU, and you can benefit from our EU membership. 🏴: or else? 🏴: or else it will be very difficult for you to re-enter the EU. 🏴: alright, I’ll vote no. *2016* 🏴: pack your bags everyone, we’re leaving the EU! 🏴: WTF?!! You promised- 🏴: Shut up. This was a democratic vote. We’re leaving. *2020* 🏴: We want to leave. 🏴: No! 🏴: Why? 🏴: That’s un-democratic!
2014 - A vote for independence would necessarily have involved leaving the EU. It's unlikely Scotland would have been admitted as a new member by 2021. 2016 - Suddenly the SNP makes EU membership the most important thing, despite planning to leave only two years before. 2020 - SNP now campaigns that leaving one political and economic union (the EU) is economic suicide/xenophobic/backward-looking/jingoistic... but leaving a much stronger and older political and economic union (the UK) is outward-looking/progressive/economic utopia. It doesn't take a huge amout of common sense to realise that this is an inherently contradictory position.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. EU officials just came out yesterday and said that it would take about 15 years for Scotland to join. Scotland's economy will be worse off about 6x by leaving the UK, *AND* studies have shown that joining the EU will not help. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however. A very interesting thread on Twitter: "There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9 The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9 In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9 ... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9 A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9 But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9 So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9 Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9 In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
@@ConnorKD1876 And England will face dire consequences for putting trust in that guy. I just hope Scotland and Northern Ireland manage to leave before they also go down.
Don't argue over whether majority of scottish voters support independence or not, if there is any doubt, just fckin ask them! That is what referendums are for.
@@colinnich that’s an interesting idea, Scottish federalism. I could also see that potentially alleviating some tensions around Orkney and the Shetlands. Would you prefer for it to replace or supplement the existing local council system?
In Wales it seems a plausible alternative interpretation, that most former UKIP Voters went to the Conservatives, but former Conservative voters went to Labour (maybe because they don't like Johnson) - resulting in a net gain for both
I'm not sure the reason for Labour's relatively good performance in Wales is because Welsh folk don't like Johnson - he did pretty well there in 2019, 14 seats is the Tories' joint-best result in Wales since the adoption of mass franchise. I think it's more likely that Mark Drakeford is a very popular figure out there.
I find it believable former UKIP voters went back to Labour. Many people voted for UKIP in the hopes it would make brexit happen, now people are voting how the used to vote like nothing happened
@@alexpotts6520 Baring in mind that was a general poor labour performance UK wide, Corbyn didn’t take a hard stance on brexit and put people off from Labour. It is possible those seats can easily swing back now that brexit has happened
@@dropit7694 Well, that notably hasn't happened in England, so what's the difference? Is it that Labour in Wales are a bit more soft-nationalist than they are elsewhere?
On labor: it would be interesting to know if the local elections are a reflection of the left/center split in the party. Are candidates who lost more from one faction of the party or were losses pretty evenly spread among those who ran left and those who ran center On Scotland: to my outsider eyes it really does seem wishful thinking on the Unionist side to say this was anything other than a bad defeat. The system is designed to prevent outright majority and they still needed tactical voting and a little vote splitting from Alba to keep the SNP out of a majority and still almost failed. It doesn't give the Greens and SNP as strong a hand as they could have for IndyRef2 but they still have a strong hand.
But if Alba had gotten in on the list vote it would have booted out alot of the list Unionist seats which relied on 1 million SNP list votes they couldn't use.
if not all people who supported pro Indy parties actually want another referendum then the opposite must be true. not all people who supported anti indy parities are against another referendum.
Both the SNP and Greens were very clear before the election that they would support indyref2, so I'd be surprised if they didn't follow through on it. I don't see "SNP alone didn't get a majority" as all that convincing of an argument, because the whole point of the alternative member system is to encourage smaller parties like the Greens.
The Scotland Act 1998 makes it very clear that Constitutional issues are wholly reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Parliament (which is not sovereign) would be in violation of the law to pass legislation effecting a referendum. We live in a constitutional monarchy, not a direct democracy.
with these results, i find Scottish independence equally problematic to the Brexit vote: in most parliamentary democracies you need a 2/3 majority for changes of the constitution. the creation of a new state is obviously a severe one. for changes like these, it would make sense that first you have such a super majority in parliament and then a referendum. Calling out the Brexit referendum did the same mistake: having a simple majority decide over a complex question without having gone through the actual consequences in parliament beforehand.
No, that's absolutely rediculous. Most independent European countries recently were formed by a simple majority in the parliament We're already going to extraordinary lengths to keep England happy we are sick and tired of it, indy ref 2 then when we get > 50% we're leaving
With respect to Scotland, the only important thing right now is what the Scottish parliament will vote for. Whether the SNP got a supermajority is not the issue. If there is a simple majority of MSPs in favour of indeyref2, there will be a referendum. End of. The SNP doesn't require any kind of mandate for independence in order to do that - the *result* of such a referendum is what is used to determine if that is the electorate's will. Any claims to the contrary are disingenuous.
Constitutional matters are reserved by Westminster, so if the majority of MPs agree then there will be a referendum. But with Johnson enjoying a huge majority I don't see it myself
@@juliantheapostate8295 they think they get to do that, but they don't. Constitutional authority in Scotland rests with the Scottish people, and that has been the case ever since the Declaration of Arbroath. You are free to disagree, but in the end the people will determine their own interests and there is absolutely fuck all that England can do about it.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however. A very interesting thread on Twitter: "There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9 The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9 In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9 ... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9 A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9 But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9 So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9 Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9 In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
@Militaria Millar Please do go ahead and point out ANYTHING that I have said that is "pish"? Oh, what's that? You can't? Oh, such a shame, I thought you might be a Big Intellect who could shame me with facts 🤔 Seems that at the end of the day, I'm the person with the facts. Let me explain further: You have to take a consistent position. Let me explain your hypocrisy to you. Now, I'm sure you would say "Scotland voted to Remain in the EU!". And you are right, I would agree with this statement(!!), the majority of Scots in the 2016 Referendum voted to stay in the EU. So I just call a spade a spade and am honest about facts. Now, however, your hypocrisy makes you manipulate all statistics to suit the narrative that you want to believe. So, I take it you would NOT say "Scotland voted consistently to stay in the UK, and 54% of all votes in the recent Scottish Elections were for Unionist Parties"? But why not? As this would be an HONEST statement. I mean, I can say "Scotland voted to Remain in the EU", so why can YOU not be honest about how Scotland feels about the UK (i.e. love, because the UK is our country). So why can you not acknowledge this with honesty? Could it be for the following reasons? 1. Because you are a hypocrite. 2. Because you are a liar. 3. Because you want to construct a narrative that suits what you want to believe. True Statement: "The Scots have consistently voted as a majority for Unionist Parties in all elections and all polling - i.e. The Scots want to REMAIN in the Union of the UK". Do you agree, or are you a hypocrite? In fact, the polling for Independence is starting at 42%. So ... if you want to say "oh that means it is consistently lying!!" that would be as dishonest as saying that because the Tory vote rose at the last election then the Tories will be in power forever and will rise forever. Agree? EVERYTHING in your argument is nonsensical and hypocritical. Why are you people so opposed to honesty?
Means another Vote, result of that is besides the point but they have a majority in parliment (SNP and green) so they will go through with it. The "not everyone voted for that" argument is a little thin as not 100% of the Union party vote are pro union voters either, there are other factors like party loyalty and policy. Tbh after the brexit vote situation I think trying to stop a 2nd indyref vote would be absurdly hypocritical at this point, the only argument they can use is "once in a generation", which is logic that wouldn't stand in any non politcal setting as it doesn't take any context into effect. The simple counter to that claim is that the Union campaign use the EU membership as a big deal, that's now off the table so I think the argument of different circumstances applies here. Just to reiverate, not pro or against independance (will decide that at the time) just discussing the holding of a new vote.
I seem to remember Nicola sturgeon repeatedly fear mongering the idea of Brexit throughout the indipendance campaign. If the SNP were genuinely worried about Brexit and thought it would be a significant factor in Scottish independence why didn't they simply ask the independence referendum to take place after the Brexit referendum?
@@aneurinallen4532 because Scotland had already voted to remain in the UK. You can't just call one referendum after another until you get the result that you like otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having them.
@@jackgoodwin5261 we also voted by 62% to stay in the EU but still got dragged out the EU against our will in a hard Brexit A material change in circumstances if I ever did see one. With the SNP and Scottish Green equaling the same independence majority that existed after the 2011 election, I'm afraid your just going to have to get used to the fact that a second referendum will be happening in the future
@@aneurinallen4532 if the people of Scotland wanted to leave the UK they would have done so already. Pointing to some new law or change in foreign affairs won't change that. Also the EU would never let Scotland join at this point. After the UK left a 70 million euro hole in their budget they're hardly going to let in annother net loss are they? Especially since France will probably leave in the next 5-10 years. The SNP will continue to come up with one excuse after annother as to why they should get a second third forth fifth... Vote on indipendance until the people of Scotland finally capitulate and get dragged out of the UK because not enough of them turned up to vote remain.
So what happens to the border, your currency, your 2% gdp defence spending, your financial situation, the formation of a national bank and how do you plan on joining the European Union whilst not meeting the requirements?
@@Jack-uy7ie People said the same things about the brexit, yet England went headfirst into it anyway ignoring the wishes of Scotland. Not saying it will go well for Scotland, that's up in the air. But they do have a right to choose seeing the new situation of the UK.
@@viktor1496 Nothing has fundamentally changed because of Brexit. Life goes on as normal, other than the pandemic and uni kids cant travel Europe as freely. So the French, Germans and the minor states are no longer our friends, who cares, it was a failed project anyway that constantly lied about its aims. I have no doubt that what the scots want they shall get but it isnt 1297 anymore scots get more of a say over England than the English MPs have over Scotland national affairs. West Lothian Question.
@@Jack-uy7ie You'd get a smack from pretty much everyone living in NI for that comment. You can also see that you don't have a business that exports/imports to and from the EU. "life has not fundamentally changed".... if you have an office job in London, sure it hasn't.
@@viktor1496 Londoners overwhelmingly voted to remain so I don't understand that reference. Everyone in NI who takes offence to it can wind their necks since it was the EU who engineered the problem of the hard border requirements but even after all the spin the treaty still holds and efforts of cooperation between the UK and Ireland are underway.
if there is a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, regardless of the party that's pretty clear: regardless the only way to be certain of the actual numbers is to perform another referendum. And I guess as an aside, I don't really care either way, but I am a strong believer in people's right to self-determination. And given how the United Kingdom is very rapidly falling behind its former colonies, I'm honestly not surprised.
The support for independence is at 2014 level with no real progress in 7 years. EU should worry about not being able to criticise China public due to Orban taking CCP cash. That's the problem with the EU they need concensus on anything so France or Germany for example can't do anything at an EU level without agreement from the likes of Slovakia or Hungary! Sounds nice in theory but nothing gets done and is sooo slow.
@@Pyxlean Then the british government will be accused of colonial exportations and scottish vote rigging Like Palestine ireland scotland hong kong ect No EU or NAFTA nation in 2021 will trade with colonists in this dayand age
@@englisharegermanaliens5101???? That isn't technically rigging because there was already a referendum in 2014 and the British government aren't colonists.. British=Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh and English
As a United States resident of Scottish descent, I have looked favorably on the idea of an independent Scotland since I was a child. But it was a sentimental concept to me. With the awareness of the hardships experienced by newly independent places, it could be difficult winning a referendum, though I hope one is held. In Canada, Quebec's independence vote in 1980 failed by 60-40 percent, mainly on worries about English-Canada's corporations pulling their jobs out of the province of Quebec if it became a nation. Sun Life of Canada did pull its headquarters out of Montreal in the lead up to the referendum, chilling the voters. Any number of England's corporations could pull something like that. Yes, Brexit reversed the trade fear factor, but in the short term before a 2nd referendum, late doubts, aka cold feet could set in.
It is quite funny that if those opposing the second referendum were right, and the Scottish people don’t want it, then they surely have nothing to worry about if that referendum happens anyway... right?
The SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however. A very interesting thread on Twitter: "There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9 The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9 In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9 ... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9 A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9 But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9 So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9 Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9 In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
@@jamiewatson9264 And yet, despite all that, you didn’t contradict me, and my point still stands. If you’re right, there is literally no worry in just having another referendum to shut everyone up once and for all about it, no matter which way it goes.
Well yes, but how do we ensure they don't demand a third referendum. How about we say that if the SNP lose again, they have to disband and their MSPs must renounce all political offices? Nothing to worry about... right?
@@juliantheapostate8295 You know they have policies besides independence right? Try and stay sensible if you’re trying to make a counterpoint. I would however agree that they can’t ask for another referendum for at least 50 years on the basis they can have another one now.
Looks like you swapped the logo of the Scottish Greens and the Green Party of England and Wales. Not a biggie - thanks for providing such clear impartial news
0:32 "Note: Parties that have developed branches in Scotland and Wales have variations on their national logo, but for simplicity's sake, we'll be using these."
@@sammiddleton7663 But the Scottish Greens are actually a separate party, they are not a devolved branch of the Green Party (which should be clear enough from its full title, the Green Party of England and Wales)
@@sammiddleton7663 The Scottish Greens are a completely different party from the English & Welsh Greens, they're not a branch like the Scottish conservatives, labour, or libdems
Haha you really showed them with that last laugh! Now, let’s go back to talking about why they are whinny bitches who should also shut up and stay in the union because they depend on us. That way we win either way! That’s sustainable right?
54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. EU officials just came out yesterday and said that it would take about 15 years for Scotland to join. Scotland's economy will be worse off about 6x by leaving the UK, *AND* studies have shown that joining the EU will not help. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however. A very interesting thread on Twitter: "There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9 The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9 In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9 ... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9 A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9 But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9 So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9 Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9 In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
In the end I think that England will push as much as it can to stop this referendum, while SNP will do the opposite. In the end Scots will have to push a lot if they want this second chance, nobody is willing to give it to them without a harsh fight. And it's right so, everyone tries to push for its own interests. Nonetheless it will be engaging, History is moving again in Europe, despite many of us think the opposite.
i wish the best to Scotland in its inevitable freedom. from Uruguay it will be interesting to see if we end up with a reunited Ireland before the end of the decade. interesting times for sure.
The SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however. A very interesting thread on Twitter: "There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9 The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9 In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9 ... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9 A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9 But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9 So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9 Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9 In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
Fyi, In the description it says "Scotts went to the polls". It should be "Scots", unless you are referring to multiple people named Scott going to the polls.
Scott lives matter
@@FrostByte112 oh shut up.
I'm pretty sure more than one Scott lives in Scotland, so technically the description is accurate. Just an odd thing to highlight.
Could be autocorrect to be fair but yeah you're right.
Pretty sure multiple people named Scott DID go to the polls.
"People could have voted for SNP/Greens but not want indyref2" - Yes correct that could be the case but that argument can be turned around as I know Labour voters who want indyref2 and independence so it works both ways.
The SNP have always been clear that a vote for them is a vote for independence just like a vote for SF is one for a united Ireland ASAP. Any Scot who is ardently against a break up of the UK should not vote SNP. In England if you wanted Brexit ‘done’ you voted Tory in 2019. If you were against Brexit you could vote LibDem even if such votes are under FPTP really a waste of a vote.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 I suppose you could argue that some people who are neutral to independence and voted for SNP as in people who don't really mind the idea but haven't made their mind up. I for one generally vote for someone who helps my constituency but not for the party at times some people could do that as well here
I saw a poll somewhere that put labour support for independence at around 50 percent.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 cry me a river
As always you can't trust a Tory about anything. Remember that the Tories are the Conservative and Unionist Party, so they'll grasp at any straw to avoid, or at least postpone, the inevitable Scottish departure from the Union.
The vote swing in the regional vote was from the the SNP to the Greens, not from the SNP to Alba: the SNP's vote share decreased by 1.4%, while the Greens' vote share increased by 1.5%.
Not much in that, really.
If anything, there was a lot of online talk (reflected in polling) about SNP constitiency/Green list tactical voting, as a way of maximising the number of pro-independence MSPs, which in reality failed to materialise. It's still decent progress for the Greens but is short of what some polls had projected them to get.
@@alexpotts6520 I doubt 1.5% of the population engage in politics online, let alone enough to cause that shift.
@@dww6 That's kind of the point I was making. The whole tactical list voting discussion was confined to a small bubble, which is why it didn't happen.
So Alba's 1.66% came from the Conservatives? Or who exactly do you think it came from other than the SNP?
@@michaelleiper Quite possibly some came from non-voters. It was a high-turnout election.
Greens co-leader was asked about their voters independence only being at 43% and they actually proved otherwise. Also, getting a majority in Scotland is unbelievably hard to get, 64 seats is a absolute thrashing.
Yeah, system that Scotland uses basically guarantees that no party gets a majority (exceptions happen, tho), because more you win contituency seats, harder it is to get regional seats. It encourages coalition building, and SNP/Greens alliance is very close. They don't agree on everything, but they also don't *disagree* on red line policies.
Quite frankly, one short of majority would be considered CRUSHING victory in any other parliament that uses proportional system. Merkels party only has 30% of the seats, Macron runs at 40% (IIRC) and SDP in Finland has 31%.
@@thelightsilent lmao, soviet life ahahhaahahah
@@thelightsilent So much to say yet all of what you just shrieked was either propaganda and flat-out wrong. 😂😂
@@thelightsilent For someone named TheLightSILENT, you sure have a lotta daft bollocks to say
@@thelightsilent I was referring to the outcome of the election, why did you feel the need to post that? Jeez, Unionists are scared...
Also i would find it hilarious if the vote leave won 51.9% to remain 48.1%. and then all the brexiteers in Westminster start saying thats not a clear enough margin
there going to do that... Ill promise you!
@@Taoxlrgion1982 no doubt 🧐 ironically can see the margin being not far off of that
Oh, trust me, we will!!!
@@yurinaytar3023 last time round i was very much against Scotland leaving. Then when the referendum results came in for brexit i understood for the first time how Scotland must feel being dragged about by the clout of England.
If they leave i wish them all the best
@@86samsky so...if the 48% that vote to remain, riot and demand Scotland to stay in the union, you'd be ok with that?
I like how they use the Libdems as the example for the smaller parties that would benefit from list votes when they ended up losing their list seats lol.
@@thelightsilent you a bot? I've seent this message a couple times now. Or are you just really mad?
@Ararune and they have no food or electricity or oil :)
@@thelightsilent There are decent minimum wages in western european members of the EU. Some are higher than the UK. I don't see how we will suddenly be trapped in flats in Scotland if we rejoined the EU when it didn't happen all these decades we were in EU. This makes no sense.
In Wales the single Lib Dem seat came from a list vote
Report lightsilent for spam.
Couple of points - neither Scotland nor Wales have Assemblies as of 2019. They are both Parliaments (though the Welsh one is more commonly refered to as the Senedd). It's also important to note that due to the voting system it is nearly impossible to get a majority in either of those parliaments.
Scotland has Never had an assemblly
That isn't true. Labour in Wales came v close to nicking a Con seat and that would've sufficed.
majority can mean different things.. majority of seats... or majority of people.
@@tombartram7384 no it wouldn't because then they wouldn't have got one of the list seats instead
Scotland and Wales managed to make MMP bad. For a start, there's more constituencies than list MSPs/MSs so you can still win a majority with constituencies which defeats the point of PR. Also, the list voted are assigned regionally, not nationally. Proportionally, Welsh labour would have got 22 seats, (they'd actually get 27 because they won 27 constituencies) the tories would get 15, plaid cymru 12, 3 each for the greens and the lib Dems and 2 for AWAP. This would bring the senned to 62 seats because labour won more constituencies than the regional vote entitled them to.
The Scottish Greens are a different party to GPEW, with entirely different policies. The logo for GPEW is consistently used in this video in place of that of SGP.
It is explained in the video that for sake of simplicity, TLDR would use the more recognised logo even though it is not correct.
@@ptonpc the video acknowledges that for branches of the parties with different logos, i.e. Scottish Tories have a different logo to the Tories. That's fine. The Scottish Greens are an *entirely different party* to the Green Party of England and Wales. It is damaging to our reputation to conflate us with a party which we disagree with on a number of key policy areas.
@@elliegomersall2981 TLDR news makes a bunch of mistakes... wow... tell me some news...
@@elliegomersall2981 I am not from the UK so you pointing out the difference between the GPEW and SGP is informative for me. That being said didn't they show the logo for Scottish Tories in this video as the same as the standard English Tories? They showed the tree logo instead of the X for the Scottish Conservatives. I maybe wrong though...
Smelly tree huggers are smelly tree huggers.
It’s called the Additional Member System. Not Alternative Member System.
well, it is additionally beneficial for Westminster
It was a wheeze introduced by Tony Blair supposedly to ensure proportional representation. But since he refused a similar system for the UK as a whole, his agenda was twofold; prevent the SNP getting a majority in Scotland despite getting a higher percentage of the votes in Scotland than Labour got in the UK and ensuring with FPTP that Labour continue to benefit from the bias FPTP gives to Labour.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 And now we are stuck with FPTP so Labours current odds of a win bank entirely on a very unlikely coalition. Labour at this point would likely gain from FPTP in the long run, albeit having coalitions with the Green Party or Lib Dems.
For one party to govern for 4 terms and to reach the amount of seats that they have, specifically within an AMS voting system, is a much bigger achievement than a lot of people are giving them credit for. Both the SNP and Greens increased their vote share.
For a bit of context, the SNP getting 62 out of 73 constituency seats that would translate as 85% of those constituency seats the equivalent to winning 552 seats out of 650 at Westminster using a FPTP system.
For the Conservatives to say they do not have a mandate to fulfill their manifesto pledges is laughable considering David Cameron delivered the EU referendum with just under 37% of the vote share.
As an aside; It was a particularly terrible night for the Lib Dems, who failed to reach 5 seats, which limits their role in parliament as they are no longer seen as a major party.
It will be more interesting as time goes on and Labour keeps declining in Scotland and seeing where that support goes.
@@theuglykwan If the last 30 years of voting is anything to go by you can still be sure the constituent votes wil not be changing to torries.
Time for independence
had the unionist parties got their shit together and had electoral pacts, we would only have gotten like 35 seats out of 73
@@theuglykwan Well, as evidenced, it seems to be going to Wales, so they can be passive-aggressive with Westminster as much as they like!
5:04 Not supporting Scotland independence doesn't mean not supporting a referendum on the matter. One can support a referendum as a way to settle the issue and still vote against independence.
LE: Thanks for @isaacw175 for pointing it out, but that 43% of Green voters supporting independence is wrong. Lord Ashcroft finds that 43% of those voting with the Greens in the Constituency vote would support independence, but 68% of those voting with the Greens on the List (Regional) vote. But when it comes to what people think of the parties, the List vote is the one that matters as the Constituency vote is much more affected by the candidates themselves and tactical voting. And this is so obvious from the results of this elections as the Greens got 1.3% of the Constituency vote and 8.1% of the List vote. So saying that 43% of Greens support independence is like ignoring 80% of the Green voters.
In fairness it was supposed to be settled back in 2014. If they lose a second time they'll just go for best three out of five.
@@Capt.Thunder The main argument is that Brexit changed the stage, one of the major issues brought up in the 2014 vote was access and membership in the EU which was revoked by English voters in 2016, while the Scottish vote was largely pro-EU
Do you think the SNP will consider the issue settled if they lose again? No they’ll immediately want a third referendum
@@adorabasilwinterpock6035 but then they wont good grounds for it and will probably loose voters
@@ryledra6372 ah yes, because Wales didn’t vote in majority for brexit and absolutely no Scottish voters voted for brexit either. Just the English, according to you.
If it is true that the Scottish Green Party had the referendum in their manifesto, then the referendum has a clear parliament majority.
There's no doubt about that.
Also the Lord Ashcroft poll is so misleading. It actually found that 68% of List Green voters support independence, where they won all of their seats, but only 43% of constituency voters support independence, where they won nothing.
@@isaacw1752 And many people from Labour also support Independence.
@@zothOne
Many that voted SNP, Greens also don’t support independence
@@macsmith6216 Correct, however, if they vote for SNP - they know they are putting their name towards independence.
@@macsmith6216 Who the hell voted for SNP whilst being against Independence? Did they really like the color Yellow that much?
No mention of Plaid Cymru getting 13 seats. Thats a pretty big deal.
Didn't they decrease seats ? I thought Leanne wood lost her seat
@@kyzantia8884 She did, but Plaid did win 13 seats, 1 up from the 12 they won last time
@@jordaneveritt6754 Scotland ENGLAND border should move SOUTH to River Tees ~ River Kent !!
Yes
Maybe big enough to warrant their own video?
Michael Gove trotted out onto Sky News to argue that it wasn't legitimate as a majority of Scots didn't vote for pro-independence parties. Ridiculously hypocritical how is this not being called out?
Seems weird to me since the independence parties did get more than 50% of the regional vote and probably the constituency. But the seat distribution is not very well done and unequal. But his argument might be right since a lot of Green Party voters voted for them because of climate change and not Scottish independence referendum. If a another referendum were to be passed it will probably be super close.
@@frederikjrgensen252 Greens are a front line pro indi party. Anyone who votes Green is pro indi by default.
@@frederikjrgensen252 Agree but I also know people who voted for the Tories not for Brexit but because it wasn't Corbyn. It's just hypocritical to argue that 'oh you voted for the Tories, you MUST want Brexit and Voter ID' but contest it when it's Scotland. I agree with you but yeah just proves both parties will always just seek their own self-interest above democratic principles
The current UK government must be illegitimate: most voters backed opposition political parties at the last general election.
@@JC-vl9sq I agree. Plurality based systems simply aren't as democratic as proportional systems. Unfortunately, the two big parties that the political system keeps in power have no incentive to change it
Why are unionists so against the vote for independence if they're so confident a majority wouldn't vote for it?
Because even if they do win wee jimmy cranky will think she’s entitled to one when ever she feels like it.
@@demono6708 ah, by "whenever she feels like" do you mean whenever her pro-independence party wins a mandate in the Scottish Parliament?
@@MackeyDeeez it's ok Sir, the person you're talking to doesn't have enough braincells to articulate a thought anyway.
@@demono6708 🤡
It's not inconsistent to think that the unionists could win it in the short term but that, in the long term, holding another referendum would galvanize the pro-independence forces and make it more likely to happen eventually. That is their experience from 2014 - they were on the winning side but it was a hollow victory.
In such circumstances, unionists probably still wouldn't want a vote. They have to win every time but the nationalists only have to win once. So why would they want to keep having referendums?
I am a unionist and I would be very sad to see Scotland leave the UK. But I strongly support the right to self-determination, and it would be wrong to force the Scots to remain part of the UK against their will.
Huzzah, a Man of Quality.
True. A union must always be voluntary. I don't want the union to collapse but I certainly wont stand in the way of the will of the people of Scotland as long as all the promises made are kept
@thecazigan28 I suppose so. But a weaker UK means a weaker west. And that is what countries like china and Russia want.
Better to have a good friend (Which I think an Indy Scotland would be) than a nation forced to stay.
@thecazigan28 The last I checked, there are proposals for a Scottish Defence Force. It would be generally be a lighter organisation but would not be that different than what is already here. So yes, I think you would be right.
As a former unionist I've been pushed over to supporting independence due to the blatant hypocrisy from tories regarding what constitutes the will of the people.
The reasonable position is to not support independence but vote against it in a referendum. If this were the case I would have voted no again.
The problem is that, despite the seats, the vote share is extremely split. 50.4% of the vote was for unionists in the constituency vote but 50.1% of the regional vote went to pro indy parties.
@@DB-ux9lu the problem is your taking an election as a binary issue. My dad voted Labour but supports an indyref and works in Cumbria.
@@KelticStingray right but that argument doesn't swing in one direction as shown by lord ashcroft's polling. The best indication we have is the party vote share even though, as you suggested, it is not completely reliable.
@@DB-ux9lu exactly. I'm sick of polls. We've just had a nationwide poll. Let's now vote on this binary issue and get on with the day job. I'm sick of people arguing against having a vote rather than just voting against it.
@@KelticStingray yes I reckon I agree with that. I myself am a Unionist but at this point I think a referendum is needed. Politics in Scotland is totally broken until the question is answered. I suppose the main problem people have with it though is that they feel it won't be the end of the debate, just like what happened in and after 2014.
Would love to see someone modelling what would happen if Westminster used the same voting system.
yeh, me2
It would become a democracy & represent the will of the people and every "yes" voter I know would reconsider.
I daresay that there will be a prolonged period of coalition governments, if not permanent. I'm not saying that's either good or bad though.
For a start, the current Conservative and Labour Parties would probably fall apart...
It is a rubbish system. STV is the best. Used in real democracies.
Well last time they voted to remain because someone made a promise...
You mean the one about the only way to stay in the EU, is to vote to stay in the UK?
No, no we didn't, we voted to remain for many different reasons, Europe as far I remember wasn't the main reason for most of the people that voted to remain. The main reason was the prospect of separating from a political and monetary union that has had hundreds of years to work towards very tight integration, many people just didn't want the hassle or the drama.
And regardless of how you feel about the situation, it was the right call for the time, as since 2014 North-sea oil has tanked, the hospitality and tourism sectors have been non-existent for a year and a half, (both sectors that the SNP were touting as large income sectors after independence)...We would have been independent right now (probably still using the pound) with no European membership as it takes many years, while our two biggest income-generating sectors have dried up, and using a currency that we could not "borrow" in any shape or form for bailouts and COVID grants, and to top it of we wouldn't have had access to the UK vaccine rollout.
The nationalists should be thankful they lost Indyref 1 as it would have made them look very, very bad at this point in time.
@@ChimpyChamp One of the major reasons had been the promise of continued EU membership and "The Vow" Let's not forget the dirty tactics used by No. On the other hand I see you are a unionist so will deny everything.
@@ptonpc Yes of course it was A reason, but it wasn't the whole story, was it?...clearly evident by the fact that even now the number of people supporting independence hasn't shot up dramatically after Brexit, it's still around the same numbers as it has been since before Brexit.
@@ChimpyChamp I think almost every person (9/10 maybe) I talked to who voted no in indy ref did so because of the EU issue and have since changed their opinions since brexit.
Just pointing this out if Scottish votes went like England the first past the post method, the SNP would've won 109 out of the 129 seats so if people say theres not a majority for independence they're just shitting themselves.
If you look at the actual vote share rather than the seats gained though it stands as good a ground as all recent polling which flip flops majority yes and no back and forth. Pro Unionists won a majority of the constituency votes. Pro independence won a majority of the regional. We can't indicate what the Scottish people truly want because of how borderline it is.
I would suggest that this is an argument for having PR in UK elections more than anything.
Idiot. The SNP/Greens/Alba combined got less than 50% of the vote. This is the 4th time in row the Scots have rejected a 2nd referendum.
@@venus1a21 Idiot Alba got no seats.
@@Artur-hg1qg No one mentioned seats. They were the Pro-independence parties and their share of the vote. Bellend.
If the Scottish voting system was the same as in England (only constituency votes), the SNP would have had an insane majority. 64 seats is a landslide win in this system, especially considering tactical voting by unionists and that many young people (who are much more likely to support independence) don't actually vote in the elections.
It'd be 64 SNP vs 2 Lab, 5 Con, 4 Lib Dem
@@Damo2690 They'd still be saying we don't have a majority....
@@229andymon no, but, you see, you’ve got to look at the vote percentages! Their system is broken and manipulable! (Hastily covers up vote percentages for the Commons)
100%
young people only tend to not vote when theyre unable to.
Did you sell that couch yet? 🤣
Yeah they have sold it
Getting a majority in a PR system is supposed to be nearly impossible and the fact that they were 1 away is an incredible performance. Good luck Scotland, your future is in your hands 💙🏴💙
Except it isn't PR at all, it's AMS.
Thank you. Here's hoping this time it is Indy.
@@aubs400 there are many forms of PR. The one the Lib Dems called for in the 80s, when they were called the SDP/Liberal alliance, is called STV - not “PR”.
It's really not supposed to be nearly impossible. It's supposed to reflect vote share. If a party can command the support of an overall majority of voters, they can easily get a majority.
@@JamesHewat Err no. It is designed specifically to prevent any one party from gaining a majority. Thus requiring coalitions. PR systems do this.
also important to note, the Scottish Parliament is designed to prevent a majority, the whole "SNP must win a majority" thing was goalpost moving by unionists, I also think your underestimating just how poorly DRoss performed, it wasn't entirely Johnson's shite job at running the uk
31 seats in Holyrood is the Tories' joint best-ever performance.
I don't like the man, in spite of being a unionist he didn't run a campaign that appealed to me. But, electorally, he did what he set out to achieve. Tories are never going to get much more than 25% in Scotland, and he got near to that ceiling.
‘Goalpost moving by unionists’ lmao so nicola sturgeon is now a unionist? She was the one who said they need a majority
@@sausagejockyGaming Exactly, she needed to say that because most people don't think 7 years is a 'generation'
@@sausagejockyGaming “you didn’t win a majority in a system specifically designed so no party should win a majority, obviously people reject your message” but when Boris wins with a smaller percentage of the vote it’s a clear mandate that people want to get Brexit done? Fucking weird that.
Free Tibet, Free Hong Kong , Free Inner Mongolia, Free Xinjiang, Free Macao, free Myanmar and protect Taiwan
Yeah
+ free Thailand from military dictatorship and monarchy
@@taromilktea4834 use france syle to fix monarchy issues (Guillotine)
more like free china
@@tritojean7549 from the Communists
Tories win a majority in parliament with 42% of the total votes "This means that the people want our brexit deal"
Scotish independence parties win a majority in the parliament and the total votes.... Tories "Well that does not mean that the majority of people want scottish independence"
Only 64% of people in Scotland voted in the election.
@@ade2487 that’s pretty close to the 2019 GE turnout too though. Also worth noting the Brexit vote had a lower turnout than Indyref1.
But there was both a Scottish and a Brexit referendum and in both cases the majority won from a massive turnout. To try and argue against that quite frankly is insane.
theres a difference , in england they use first pass the post voting system and in scotland they use a similar voting system to e.u countries/
I'm English and broadly right wing but in the last 5 years my view on the union has shifted from apathy to anti unionism. I just don't see the point in trying to hold it together anymore. We would all 've better off without it. The English get a large portion of their tax burden lifted, the Scottish and Welsh get complete self determination and the Irish either get an independent Ulster or a Irish union
Thanks for reconquering Tunis and Italy.
I respect the English people enough to know that you are a fair and decent people that would never agree to a Scotland kept in the union against our will. Your PM does not speak for you in that regard. But.... if you're banking on an Indy Scotland dividend, I reckon you're in for a disappointment. Those Scottish "handouts" are unionist smoke and mirrors - but hey, that will be our issue, not yours.
@@229andymon doesn't scotland take 4x the benefits per person compared to England? I do certainly know that at least in 2017 England was the only part of the union in a financial surplus rather than deficit.
I think you have come around to the right point of view. The UK is past its sell by date.
Marianne
@@flaviusbelisarius7517 no it doesn’t. And England isn’t in surplus the SE is. The rest of the UK is, according to the way the Brits calculate things, baled out by the SE. I don’t believe that, and ask 3 questions of you. 1. Does that spell success to you if true? 2. If true should it not be changed? 3. Why are unionists the only ones supporting the Barnett system that underpins it. Why is Westminster so keen to hold onto a Scottish liability? Brit altruism? Yeah....
To point out, you said the SNP were "denied a majority" due to being 1 seat short. The Scottish parliament is actually designed to not have a majority and to encourage cross-party politics. When the SNP won a majority before, this was very improbable. So the fact the SNP are 1 away from a majority is still an overwhelming victory for the party.
Man, Douglas Ross is such a fanny
During the campaign, I was confused over who I despise more, Douglas or Boris.
@@thelegend_doggo1062 spreading it between them works wonders hahaha
He really is, isn’t he. I don’t like Tories but at least former Tory leaders like David McLetchie and Annabel Goldie came across as functioning human beings. Ross is a slug.
@@thelightsilent sureeee...
He's a massive clown
The best case for an independent Scotland is not ‘leave the UK and join the EU’, it is ‘the future of Scotland should be decided by Scots’. An independent Scotland doesn’t have to rejoin the EU, rather, the decision should be made by the Scots. An independent Scotland could vote out SNP in the Holyrood at anytime. however, if them decide to stay in the union, they would never get rid of the tories in the Westminster, even they want to. They are simply outnumbered. They will always be forced into doing something against their will. It’s still hard to believe Tony Blair is the only guy who is not a Tory and born in the past 100 years that has won a GE in the UK . And Tories have not won Scotland in GEs for a very, very long time.
That Lord ashcroft poll which said only 45% of green voters supportered independence was only of the constituencies the greens stood in last time which was only 3. They stood in 12 this time.
If you look at evidence of regional voters and also membership it shows a large majority of independence support in the party, and they did have indy ref 2 in their manifesto which people voted for.
The scottish election the main topic was independence. A voter saying they didn't vote along that and didn't care has to be a bit full of it. It's like an American saying they vote for trump yet act oblivious when he did tax cuts for the rich
@@wile123456 I don't believe that for 2 reasons, firstly most people don't read manifestos and secondly, most scots don't want independence but they do want the SNP to represent them in Great Britain.
The SNP know this but keep saying that the Scottish people voted for independence which is pretty demeaning to the Scottish voters.
@@thelightsilent The pound used to be worth a lot more than the Euro. Now it's not. Ireland used to be a shithole when it was part of the UK. Now it's doing a lot better than the UK. The UK is taking Scotland's money and then giving part of it back. Scotland might not get that 80% from the UK anymore, but the UK won't take it from Scotland in the first place.
@@thelightsilent EU pays tons of funding to the poorer countries in the union, because they want to equalize economies to better facilitate trade and avoid exploitation.
The Euro isn't worthless. It's doing a fuck ton better than the brtiish pound which has been in free fall since brexit lmao. I enjoyed buying everything at a 20% discount before brexit left the union completly, the currency was so low but prices were the same, so a little personal benifit for a European like me over brexit.
Also you just say "soviet life style" when the EU was the opposite of the society union and its economic model. You're full of shit.
@@commanderdon4300 it's been all over the media there. All debates on TV has talked about independence. You have to be a special kind of moronic voter to not realize their goal lmao.
I think boris will reject another independence referendum, he is massively opposed to the idea
If the people of Scotland *really* wants independence then it will be very difficult for Boris to put a stop to it.
Seems like a bad idea That would likely over time boost support for leaving the UK were as now in poll I've seen saying it's over it about 55%-56% better for unionistis if you have one were it predicted to be 55% than 60-70% if your hoping to turn that around and settle the question for a bit
@@thecuriousmiqote7530 that was cameron's plan with the EU referendum.
Problem is the more he postpones it, the stronger the independence movement gets. So it's in his interests to allow the referendum sooner than later
That will be a gift for the SNP who are prepared to go to court. They can shout tyranny and have a wipe out in the next elections. Johnson will have to cave and take the risk of independence referendum or he will resign before so he doesn’t become the PM who destroyed the union.
3:01 I think you have the figures for Dumfriesshire and Dumbarton the wrong way around
I wasn't sure if he'd simply got the Conservative and Labour coloured incorrectly - but yes, checked the numbers and it is just the constituency on the two charts that's wrong.
Are you going to do a video on what is going on in Colombia?
If you are I have a couple videos you may want to use
I hope so. It's crazy the atrocities that are happening against protestors there and how the USA and CIA back up the fascists military and delegitimizes a fair election, just because the huge winner is a socialist.
@@the_embarrassed_lemon5967 What's happening in Colombia? I'm out of the loop, been too focused on EU news lately
@@RafaelW8 There have been lots of protests starting on the 28th of April that turned violent due to the government raising tax for the poorer people. Even though the government pull back the protests have continued and there isn't any food or petrol going into the cities while some people are taking it onto themselves to be vigilantes and killing people at night.
Not on this channel, UK only, there’s a global channel too though
1:13 It's the Additional Member System, not the Alternative Members System. I think your confusing it with the Alternative Vote which is a completely different electoral system.
Voting system designed to stop majority, yet SNP and Lab both being able to come within 1 seat of it. No wonder the union is on the path to splitting when left or center-left regional governments are popular with their people, but get their wings clipped by the tories for a decade
@James Clarke Let's see, there is the Internal Markets bill transferring powers to Westminster.
The furlough extension which the UK govt didn't allow for until England needed to go into lockdown.
Insisting that there is no mandate for IndyRef 2.
Boris rejecting invitations to hold regular talks with Welsh and Scottish governments over Covid response.
And if you look up voting records of senior Conservative MPs, they generally vote against devolutionary measures. It is quite surprising I have to explain this.
@James Clarke Don't mean to be patronising, but this is easy to find with resources like "They Work For You" - a website the allows you to see MPs voting record grouped by subject. Some might have good reasons to vote against specific bills, but Johnson for example is 0-24 against more powers to the Scottish Parliament and 0-18 against powers to the Welsh Senedd. Some of those might be duplicate, Internal Markers for example is on both lists, but it is a consistent theme across most Tory MPs to vote against further devolution or transfer of power to Scottish and Welsh parliaments.
The problem with devolution as it stands is that the regional governments have limited powers in regards to taxation and large parts of fiscal policy. Makes it difficult to tell who is responsible for failures and successes (pretty sure SNP took credit for things they had little to do with and vice versa). But since countries like Ireland, Belgium or Netherlands exist and a prosperous with a relatively small area and population compared to their neighbours, it seems likely an independent Scotland or Wales would manage.
I've moved quite a bit over the last decade and always voted tactically for whichever left-leaning party had the best chance at getting the seat. Last week I've split my vote between Labour for the constituency and Plaid for the region (I live in south Wales).
@James Clarke fair enough, I don't know what the right solution is to be honest. I'd like to think that we're stronger as unions (taking UK, USA, EU as different examples of unions, not countries). Perhaps this union of ours can be saved with more direct, open and local government under a federation/republic/union of micro nations (what is England likely splitting into anything from 3 to 10 such mini-states like Cornwall, London etc) . But I am not seeing much evidence of the Tories pushing for such things, as such Scottish and Welsh independence from the UK, with the potential of forming or joining a different, more fair and balanced union does seem like an alternative worth perusing.
@James Clarke Yup I'm with you there, the bigger and more complex the society, the more like it is to fracture along some arbitrary lines. We've got a north/south divide in Wales too, it's tame now but I'm sure it'd surface to the top within a few decades of independence if we ever got it lol.
Independence for Scotland is probably inevitable, SNP will force indyref2, it will be again close to a 50/50 result. People on both sides will get more hardened in their views through the campaign for it. Even if the result is to stay as a union then either we go for a federal/republic system or I expect indyref3 in the 2030s 🤦♀️.
Anyway, I also wanted to say thank you, it's quite rare these days to have an encounter in the YT comment section with someone who is not in the exact same political camp and for that to be an informative and civil discussion. All the best 😃
It’s worth noting that a federal option was floated in the late 90s as an alternative to devolution but was dismissed as too radical. It’s only with the talk of independence that it’s surfaced as a more moderate option. Meaning even if federal is anyone’s preferred option, it wouldn’t have been on the table without the independence debate. I don’t really mind either way, a true federal system (possibly with English regions splitting to have populations closer to Scotland and Wales) could indeed work well.
The real question is whether it’s likely to actually truly happen, or if it would get watered down similar to how the “maximum devolution” promises in Indyref1 were watered down to just a few extra taxation powers. I’ve got a number of friends who’d be happy with a (con)federal option but don’t believe it would happen directly, and some even see the most likely route to federalism as being through independence. Such as possibly forming a federal New Act of Union later once everyone is equals at the bargaining table again. (This also assumes some NI reunification referendum in the next decade or two.)
Edit: paragraphs
If Scotland and Wales are so subsidised by England, why are English politicians so keen for them to stay a part of the UK? Have you ever known a conservative to choose the option which leaves them with less money?
Scotland contains the UK’s oil and nuclear weapons.
You could repeat this process endlessly until a country is left with just the wealthiest area... typically the capital city. And then there is no country left, just an isolated city that it turns out is dependent on support from the rest of the nation. A country's power comes from control over its land, human resources, manpower for military, different natural resources (water, lumber, oil, minerals) dispersed through its regions, agricultural output (dispersed). Simply looking at the flow of subsidy simplifies things too much.
because of the landmass i guess, the populations of scotland and wales put together are still less than those who live in london alone, so its not for money reasons, in fact only 2.5 million scots pay tax out of the 5.5 million population.
@@JollyOldCanuck no , they dont want the nuke subs there and i guess all the jobs they provide scotland, no problem england will move it all to portsmouth or wales ! oil, no good anymore .very expensive to extract and refine, and we are all moving away from fossil fuel so no oil revenue for scotland if independent and if they rejoin the e.u they wont let them use it anyway but there is plenty of wind coming out of sturgeon to power the wind farms in scotland .
@@brucewayne7838 Getting awfy excited there Bruce. Try taking a wee breath between sentences.
There are a few things wrong with this video that need correcting:
1:07 - They aren't "national assemblies", they're both parliaments.
1:15 - It's an Additional Member System, not Alternative Member System.
6:09 - It says "MSPs" on the graphic, but they're actually "MSs"
6:28 - It's not the "Welsh Assembly" anymore - it's now "Senedd Cymru" or the Welsh Parliament.
6:36 - The last election was in 2016, not 2017.
bet you are fun..........i would finish it but you dont go to party's
@@ICEJosh1987 it's a news channel... it's good to want the information to be factual lmao why are you mad
@@AbhainnHarrington-v2e hear hear
National assemblies = national parliaments. They're essentially the same thing.
On top of that, they got the graphs the wrong way round for Dumbarton and Dumfriesshire, and said the Lib Dems benefit from the list vote, which they didn't and by and large haven't for a while. I follow this channel mainly for insights into politics down south, now I'm wondering if it's this badly researched all the time.
As an American outsider looking in British politics I’m baffled by a couple of things. One, why wouldn’t a Scottish or Welsch referendum require a super majority of the votes in order to breakaway from the Union, perhaps 60% or 2/3 majority? And two, why would England recognize such a referendum to breakaway from the Union in the first place? After all, in the case of Spain, Catalonia did vote in a referendum for independence but was not recognized by Madrid and the Catalan politicians were even held criminally responsible in their attempt to leave Spain.
I expect that the SNP and Scottish green party can form some kind of coalition that will fight hard to get that referendum. It is hard to argue that a majority in a parliament can't ask their constituents what they want in the form of a referendum. I just don't think it will happen soon as the Westminster government does not seem likely to allow them to any time soon.
Well to be fair the last referendum was only a few years ago, when it was meant to be once in a lifetime, an on that reasoning , couldn't the SNP ask for a referendum every single year , if pro indy ref 2 parties are in a majority
@@kyzantia8884 but british politics have totally changed since 2014, because of brexit and the scottish people wanting to stay.
@@gerlofprins7509 Right but Scotland would not be allowed into the EU, as Spain have said they would veto it, i think everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter, but why would u be against Westminster having say in Scottish politics but not the mostly unelected leaders in brussels, especially if your thinking about the effect on the economy, as Scotland does far more trade to other parts of the UK than Europe. Also if Scotland did become independent, the Orkney and Shetland islands would leave scotalnd.
@@thelightsilent you think Scotland has an 80% budget deficit? That's ridiculous, and attitudes like yours is what makes a lot of Scots want to leave the UK.
@@thelightsilentMan..congratulations on a 5 yr olds basic grasp of current affairs.
Saying there's no mandate for another referendum in Scotland because the SNP came 1 seat short of a majority, in a voting system designed to avoid one party government, is so fishy. I don't know why unionists even go there, especially MPs elected in FPTP.
There's no mandate because they had their referendum 7 years ago and lost. They said it was a once in a generation vote. It was the SNP who said a majority would give them a new mandate - so now they have failed, the unionists naturally say they don't have one
@@juliantheapostate8295 But one seat short in a system designed to avoid majorities? It's so pedantic and antagonistic, adds credibility to the notion that the union is no longer one of consent. Besides, it's almost a distraction given that there's a pro referendum majority at holyrood now with the Scottish Greens. To imply all the pro independence msps need to be from the same party or there's no mandate is absurd.
Nothing would make me laugh more than if Wales tried to leave the UK😂
England would invade wales
@@ollie6148 yeah.. no they wouldn’t.
For now, the Labour Party seem to have very successfully forged a separate Welsh identity, which somewhat insulates them from electoral struggles elsewhere, without pushing the region/nation/principality towards independence.
Why 🤔
@@angussoutter7824 Probably because suddenly the impossible is happening.
I know this might be a naive look on things but still. If you make an argument that voters don't want something then what's the problem in letting them vote on this issue?? - if you are telling the truth there shouldn't be any
The problem is that the voters do seem to want it, and the unionist parties are afraid of the result if they ask people.
We all saw what happened with the Brexit referendum: Cameron called it to show once and for all that no-one wants it, but people voted for it. Now people don't want to call referenda unless they're sure of the result being in their favour.
@@s.v.berezin1562 yeah, It sounds for me like hypocrisy. Although I don't live there so I might be wrong.
@@tomaszzalewski4541 You're right. It is hypocrisy.
Just wait a bit and some tories and unionists will most likely be replying to you telling you why it Scotland should not be independent.
The argument that not all SNP voters support independence works both ways: polling suggests around 30% of Scottish Labour voters support independence.
The way the Scottish Parliament system allocates seats to opposition parties you kind of have to have overwhelming support to hold a near-absolute majority.
I wouldn’t underestimate support for independence at this point.
You're assuming every SNP voter wants independence
@@juliantheapostate8295 I think it’s a pretty key part of the party’s appeal.
@@envysart797 The fact that they are simply not Tory and Labour is also a pretty key part of their appeal - they were by far the most popular party in 2014 but still lost the referendum
@@juliantheapostate8295 you’re assuming every Tory and Labour voter doesn’t want independence. Many vote for them simply because they are not the SNP. Argument goes both ways.
Thats the English Green Party logo, you've used pal. They're 2 independent parties , ompletely separate. As opposed to Labour, tory and libdem who's scottish parties are representations of Westminster in Scotland.
I am not sure about the swing to Alba from SNP... I voted SNP/Green due to the way the regional vote works, SNP has a massive constituency vote so they aren't as compensated in the regional like the Greens are, for example. I voted green because of my support for independence but also to give a party with more environmental focus a chance to be heard. This is a massive positive of the Scottish system, no matter your preferred party, the whole idea is to not easily get a majority and instead the makeup of the parliament actually reflects the vote share (to a degree, of course).
I also voted SNP and Green. In the hope we escape this Brexit Empire madness.
When I saw Xi Jinping in the intro I immediately thought of Winnie the Pooh 😂
Pigret?
You just got yourself banned from China!
Yea me too. Since the whole incident in China I cannot think of him as anything else. Talk about Streisand effect.
Who is Xi Jinping? I just saw Winnie the Pooh and thought it was an odd choice to include him?
Not as bad as having Boris or Trump...
Tnx for the Video!
Even TLDR News seems to not understand democracy and the difference between a parliamentary election and a referendum. It's not for one individual to decide whether or not indyref2 should happen, it's all the Scots together who decide by electing parliamentary representatives. In the current Scottish political system, whether an indyref2 will be held or not is decided by a vote in parliament; if a majority of msp's vote in favour, then indyref2 must be held. In a parliamentary election, it's the amount of seats that are taken in to account and not the percentages. That's the major difference with a referendum, where solely the percentages are taken in to account. In other words, legislating for indyref2 is not equal to the outcome of voting in indyref2. Because, as stated in the video, you can't know for sure whether all voters for indy parties are for independence or not, and whether all voters for unionist parties are against independence or not. That question can only be answered in a referendum.
Once again, members of the Scottish and Welsh PARLIAMENT have been referred to using the word assembly
The SNP didn’t just win, they absolutely destroyed it. In WM terms, they would have won 550/650 House of Commons seats.
The SNP lost. 54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. EU officials just came out yesterday and said that it would take about 15 years for Scotland to join. Scotland's economy will be worse off about 6x by leaving the UK, *AND* studies have shown that joining the EU will not help. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however.
A very interesting thread on Twitter:
"There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9
In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9
... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9
A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9
But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9
So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9
Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9
In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
@@jamiewatson9264 did Tony Blair win his landslide?
What about Boris Johnson and his current seat count, did he win?
If the answer to either of those is yes, the SNP won a landslide.
They did worse than they did in 2011
@@juliantheapostate8295 not by votes they didn’t. They won more vote share on the first vote, just Alba and the greens split the list vote.
As a non-native speaker, all I can say is: Scottish accent is really funny to me.
There's a shockingly broad range of accents in Scotland and they're all funny even to other Scots xD
Try scouse and black country
And i mean the midlands there b4 any one tries to misinterpret it.
Also a non-native speaker, Scottish accents are my favourite.
Which one? I can think of at least 10 distinct Scottish accents.
Please go, it will be the best thing ever for the assembly of England.
Fun fact, England is the only country within the UK union without a parliament of his own.
@@francescopapa3511 Fun Fact: Scottish MP's are not allowed to vote on English only matters.
@@francescopapa3511 Fun fact. Due to EVEL, Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on English matters even if they affect the other nations, such as funding the NHS.
Saor Alba
willing to bet no tory voter know what this means
@@ewanspeight6226 acting like tory voters in Scotland can't know gaidhlig
Semper fi
@@ewanspeight6226 Yea probably you all speak English. And you spend their money too.
@@ewanspeight6226 I bet all the nationalist don’t even know how to pronounce it, I’m not a Tory or a nationalist your all wankers
@@nicholas8380 true I speak english but the pound sterling is not a uniquely english currency.
Scotland will never become a SNP republic .
In Switzerland, they have at least four referendums a year so the concept of a 'Once in a lifetime referendum doesn't really bode well when you think that the UK has had three general elections in five years. In fact, did anybody actually say 'Once in a lifetime referendum'? Maybe the UK needs more practice at referendums, as I think one person one vote is a lot more democratic than the first past the post system.
Referenda were explicitly constitutionally disallowed for a very long time in the UK, it was altered to allow the referendum for joining the EU in the first place. As such, they are culturally seen as something very big and special and risky to do. Personally, I’d like to see an independent Scotland holding many more referenda, much like Switzerland does.
neither system is perfect , but i think first past the post works better in the u.k.
independence is Scotland's future
I’m not sure what they have to gain from independence tho.
@@jacobbarnett2656 freedom, complete control of our own contry, not have to worry about the fact that London alone can out vote all of Scotland like in brexit, the vast majority of Scotland voted to stay in the eu, all it took was a majority of London to want to leave and our entire country was forced out against our will
@@kierancraig7380 So... the Scottish want to leave and rejoin the EU even though 60% of trade is with the UK meaning if they left they’d have to pay a significant amount of tariffs to have stuff across the border as the current Scottish economy is dependent on it.
@@jacobbarnett2656 not necessarily, there are exceptions to the EUs hardborder rule such as the Republic of ireland and northern Ireland (one is in the eu and the other isn't) but they have no hard border and trade freely with each other thanks to the good Friday agreement
@@kierancraig7380 That’s something that’s still heavily disputed once Britain left the EU as neither side was willing to adjust their restrictions for the other leading to a economic crisis in Ireland.
*2014*
🏴: please don’t leave, Scotland. We promise we’ll stay in the EU, and you can benefit from our EU membership.
🏴: or else?
🏴: or else it will be very difficult for you to re-enter the EU.
🏴: alright, I’ll vote no.
*2016*
🏴: pack your bags everyone, we’re leaving the EU!
🏴: WTF?!! You promised-
🏴: Shut up. This was a democratic vote. We’re leaving.
*2020*
🏴: We want to leave.
🏴: No!
🏴: Why?
🏴: That’s un-democratic!
2014 - A vote for independence would necessarily have involved leaving the EU. It's unlikely Scotland would have been admitted as a new member by 2021.
2016 - Suddenly the SNP makes EU membership the most important thing, despite planning to leave only two years before.
2020 - SNP now campaigns that leaving one political and economic union (the EU) is economic suicide/xenophobic/backward-looking/jingoistic... but leaving a much stronger and older political and economic union (the UK) is outward-looking/progressive/economic utopia. It doesn't take a huge amout of common sense to realise that this is an inherently contradictory position.
Time for independence
54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. EU officials just came out yesterday and said that it would take about 15 years for Scotland to join. Scotland's economy will be worse off about 6x by leaving the UK, *AND* studies have shown that joining the EU will not help. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however.
A very interesting thread on Twitter:
"There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9
In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9
... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9
A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9
But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9
So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9
Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9
In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
A party called the Scottish National party will always push for independence wether the is a mandate or not.
They will. But this alone does not mean that there isn't a mandate.
In The Boy Who Cried Wolf, there really was a wolf...
I should hope so. It’s the reason the party was founded in the first place.
Independents Scotland and Cymru
Freedom for Celtic brothers
Well I hope they get their independence.
Sturgeon: we want a second referendum!
Johnson: how about no!
I hate Boris man
@@ConnorKD1876 Who doesn't?
@@ratatatuff England sadly
@@ConnorKD1876 And England will face dire consequences for putting trust in that guy. I just hope Scotland and Northern Ireland manage to leave before they also go down.
@@ratatatuff exactly mate
Having an independent Scotland, with the loss of SNP seats in Westminster, makes it really difficult for Labour to win in a (England) election.
Don't argue over whether majority of scottish voters support independence or not, if there is any doubt, just fckin ask them! That is what referendums are for.
🏴🏴🏴
You got the Dumfries and Dumbarton swings the wrong way around.
Swings and roundabouts? The wrong way around?
The Sooner the better for Scottish independence. Id rather have decision's from Edinburgh than London. Worlds apart.
I don't want to be ruled from Edinburgh - I'd demand a more local parliament in Glasgow. I guess why not one in Aberdeen and Inverness too?
@@colinnich that’s an interesting idea, Scottish federalism. I could also see that potentially alleviating some tensions around Orkney and the Shetlands. Would you prefer for it to replace or supplement the existing local council system?
In Wales it seems a plausible alternative interpretation, that most former UKIP Voters went to the Conservatives, but former Conservative voters went to Labour (maybe because they don't like Johnson) - resulting in a net gain for both
that makes sense to me
I'm not sure the reason for Labour's relatively good performance in Wales is because Welsh folk don't like Johnson - he did pretty well there in 2019, 14 seats is the Tories' joint-best result in Wales since the adoption of mass franchise. I think it's more likely that Mark Drakeford is a very popular figure out there.
I find it believable former UKIP voters went back to Labour. Many people voted for UKIP in the hopes it would make brexit happen, now people are voting how the used to vote like nothing happened
@@alexpotts6520 Baring in mind that was a general poor labour performance UK wide, Corbyn didn’t take a hard stance on brexit and put people off from Labour. It is possible those seats can easily swing back now that brexit has happened
@@dropit7694 Well, that notably hasn't happened in England, so what's the difference? Is it that Labour in Wales are a bit more soft-nationalist than they are elsewhere?
On labor: it would be interesting to know if the local elections are a reflection of the left/center split in the party. Are candidates who lost more from one faction of the party or were losses pretty evenly spread among those who ran left and those who ran center
On Scotland: to my outsider eyes it really does seem wishful thinking on the Unionist side to say this was anything other than a bad defeat. The system is designed to prevent outright majority and they still needed tactical voting and a little vote splitting from Alba to keep the SNP out of a majority and still almost failed. It doesn't give the Greens and SNP as strong a hand as they could have for IndyRef2 but they still have a strong hand.
But if Alba had gotten in on the list vote it would have booted out alot of the list Unionist seats which relied on 1 million SNP list votes they couldn't use.
if not all people who supported pro Indy parties actually want another referendum
then the opposite must be true.
not all people who supported anti indy parities are against another referendum.
Aye that's right. Party support can't be used a proxy for how a referendum would go
Both the SNP and Greens were very clear before the election that they would support indyref2, so I'd be surprised if they didn't follow through on it. I don't see "SNP alone didn't get a majority" as all that convincing of an argument, because the whole point of the alternative member system is to encourage smaller parties like the Greens.
It's time for Scotland to be brave enough now to stand on their own two feet and rule themselves. It's a leap of faith they won't regret.
*jumps*
(proceeds to plummet quicker than the economy)
The Scotland Act 1998 makes it very clear that Constitutional issues are wholly reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Parliament (which is not sovereign) would be in violation of the law to pass legislation effecting a referendum. We live in a constitutional monarchy, not a direct democracy.
Time for a Revolution then.
If a law tells us that we're not allowed democracy then I'm all up for breaking the law
@@anothergermanmapper7754 based
with these results, i find Scottish independence equally problematic to the Brexit vote: in most parliamentary democracies you need a 2/3 majority for changes of the constitution. the creation of a new state is obviously a severe one. for changes like these, it would make sense that first you have such a super majority in parliament and then a referendum. Calling out the Brexit referendum did the same mistake: having a simple majority decide over a complex question without having gone through the actual consequences in parliament beforehand.
No, that's absolutely rediculous. Most independent European countries recently were formed by a simple majority in the parliament
We're already going to extraordinary lengths to keep England happy we are sick and tired of it, indy ref 2 then when we get > 50% we're leaving
The trouble the conservatives face now is somehow trying to argue for pro brexit or pro union without accidentally arguing against the other.
I might go Scotland for a few days if I get a week off this year. I've never been and I'd love to walk the hills and mountains.
The Union Jack will look pretty interesting without Scotland. Maybe they do not change it at all, since that would change a lot of flags.
The flag should stay as it is imo
Error: don’t say msp’s in the welsh parliament
With respect to Scotland, the only important thing right now is what the Scottish parliament will vote for. Whether the SNP got a supermajority is not the issue. If there is a simple majority of MSPs in favour of indeyref2, there will be a referendum. End of. The SNP doesn't require any kind of mandate for independence in order to do that - the *result* of such a referendum is what is used to determine if that is the electorate's will. Any claims to the contrary are disingenuous.
Constitutional matters are reserved by Westminster, so if the majority of MPs agree then there will be a referendum. But with Johnson enjoying a huge majority I don't see it myself
@@juliantheapostate8295 they think they get to do that, but they don't.
Constitutional authority in Scotland rests with the Scottish people, and that has been the case ever since the Declaration of Arbroath.
You are free to disagree, but in the end the people will determine their own interests and there is absolutely fuck all that England can do about it.
I will say again, false equivalence is not "in the spirit of balance"
Sturgeon: I AM INEVITABLE
EU to the UK in 20 years "You couldn't live with your own failure. Where did that lead you? Back to me"
54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however.
A very interesting thread on Twitter:
"There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9
In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9
... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9
A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9
But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9
So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9
Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9
In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
@Militaria Millar Please do go ahead and point out ANYTHING that I have said that is "pish"? Oh, what's that? You can't? Oh, such a shame, I thought you might be a Big Intellect who could shame me with facts 🤔 Seems that at the end of the day, I'm the person with the facts.
Let me explain further: You have to take a consistent position. Let me explain your hypocrisy to you.
Now, I'm sure you would say "Scotland voted to Remain in the EU!". And you are right, I would agree with this statement(!!), the majority of Scots in the 2016 Referendum voted to stay in the EU.
So I just call a spade a spade and am honest about facts.
Now, however, your hypocrisy makes you manipulate all statistics to suit the narrative that you want to believe.
So, I take it you would NOT say "Scotland voted consistently to stay in the UK, and 54% of all votes in the recent Scottish Elections were for Unionist Parties"? But why not? As this would be an HONEST statement. I mean, I can say "Scotland voted to Remain in the EU", so why can YOU not be honest about how Scotland feels about the UK (i.e. love, because the UK is our country). So why can you not acknowledge this with honesty? Could it be for the following reasons?
1. Because you are a hypocrite.
2. Because you are a liar.
3. Because you want to construct a narrative that suits what you want to believe.
True Statement: "The Scots have consistently voted as a majority for Unionist Parties in all elections and all polling - i.e. The Scots want to REMAIN in the Union of the UK". Do you agree, or are you a hypocrite?
In fact, the polling for Independence is starting at 42%. So ... if you want to say "oh that means it is consistently lying!!" that would be as dishonest as saying that because the Tory vote rose at the last election then the Tories will be in power forever and will rise forever. Agree?
EVERYTHING in your argument is nonsensical and hypocritical. Why are you people so opposed to honesty?
@@jamiewatson9264 It's a system designed to stop a majority
All this bickering about whether or not the people 'want' a referendum. Just hold a referendum and find out
Means another Vote, result of that is besides the point but they have a majority in parliment (SNP and green) so they will go through with it.
The "not everyone voted for that" argument is a little thin as not 100% of the Union party vote are pro union voters either, there are other factors like party loyalty and policy.
Tbh after the brexit vote situation I think trying to stop a 2nd indyref vote would be absurdly hypocritical at this point, the only argument they can use is "once in a generation", which is logic that wouldn't stand in any non politcal setting as it doesn't take any context into effect. The simple counter to that claim is that the Union campaign use the EU membership as a big deal, that's now off the table so I think the argument of different circumstances applies here.
Just to reiverate, not pro or against independance (will decide that at the time) just discussing the holding of a new vote.
I seem to remember Nicola sturgeon repeatedly fear mongering the idea of Brexit throughout the indipendance campaign.
If the SNP were genuinely worried about Brexit and thought it would be a significant factor in Scottish independence why didn't they simply ask the independence referendum to take place after the Brexit referendum?
@@jackgoodwin5261 they did before the 2017 election. The parliament passed the legislation and May said "now is not the time"
@@aneurinallen4532 because Scotland had already voted to remain in the UK. You can't just call one referendum after another until you get the result that you like otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having them.
@@jackgoodwin5261 we also voted by 62% to stay in the EU but still got dragged out the EU against our will in a hard Brexit
A material change in circumstances if I ever did see one. With the SNP and Scottish Green equaling the same independence majority that existed after the 2011 election, I'm afraid your just going to have to get used to the fact that a second referendum will be happening in the future
@@aneurinallen4532 if the people of Scotland wanted to leave the UK they would have done so already. Pointing to some new law or change in foreign affairs won't change that.
Also the EU would never let Scotland join at this point. After the UK left a 70 million euro hole in their budget they're hardly going to let in annother net loss are they? Especially since France will probably leave in the next 5-10 years.
The SNP will continue to come up with one excuse after annother as to why they should get a second third forth fifth... Vote on indipendance until the people of Scotland finally capitulate and get dragged out of the UK because not enough of them turned up to vote remain.
An independent Scotland is a better Scotland !!!
So what happens to the border, your currency, your 2% gdp defence spending, your financial situation, the formation of a national bank and how do you plan on joining the European Union whilst not meeting the requirements?
@@Jack-uy7ie People said the same things about the brexit, yet England went headfirst into it anyway ignoring the wishes of Scotland.
Not saying it will go well for Scotland, that's up in the air. But they do have a right to choose seeing the new situation of the UK.
@@viktor1496 Nothing has fundamentally changed because of Brexit. Life goes on as normal, other than the pandemic and uni kids cant travel Europe as freely. So the French, Germans and the minor states are no longer our friends, who cares, it was a failed project anyway that constantly lied about its aims.
I have no doubt that what the scots want they shall get but it isnt 1297 anymore scots get more of a say over England than the English MPs have over Scotland national affairs. West Lothian Question.
@@Jack-uy7ie You'd get a smack from pretty much everyone living in NI for that comment. You can also see that you don't have a business that exports/imports to and from the EU. "life has not fundamentally changed".... if you have an office job in London, sure it hasn't.
@@viktor1496 Londoners overwhelmingly voted to remain so I don't understand that reference. Everyone in NI who takes offence to it can wind their necks since it was the EU who engineered the problem of the hard border requirements but even after all the spin the treaty still holds and efforts of cooperation between the UK and Ireland are underway.
if there is a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, regardless of the party that's pretty clear: regardless the only way to be certain of the actual numbers is to perform another referendum.
And I guess as an aside, I don't really care either way, but I am a strong believer in people's right to self-determination. And given how the United Kingdom is very rapidly falling behind its former colonies, I'm honestly not surprised.
A serious victory for scotland. Congratulations from the EU.
God what ego. You've decided that you represent 27 countries.
The support for independence is at 2014 level with no real progress in 7 years. EU should worry about not being able to criticise China public due to Orban taking CCP cash. That's the problem with the EU they need concensus on anything so France or Germany for example can't do anything at an EU level without agreement from the likes of Slovakia or Hungary! Sounds nice in theory but nothing gets done and is sooo slow.
Thank you. Keep the light on. Hopefully we can be back soon.
@@tombartram7384 A serious victory for scotland still. Congratulations from the EU also. Seems like some europeans share a common mindset
@@tombartram7384 ironic for a unionist
They can not just leave, Boris still loves 'em.
I doubt that. But even if it’s true, the feeling ain’t mutual. We think he’s an utter bawbag.
@@grahamlive i hope all the best for you mate, eu28 sounds much better
Boris will just reject every attempt for a referendum and even if the SNP sues Boris or the Conservative government I still doubt the SNP will win.
@@Pyxlean Then the british government will be accused of colonial exportations and scottish vote rigging
Like
Palestine
ireland
scotland
hong kong ect
No EU or NAFTA nation in 2021 will trade with colonists in this dayand age
@@englisharegermanaliens5101???? That isn't technically rigging because there was already a referendum in 2014 and the British government aren't colonists..
British=Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh and English
As a United States resident of Scottish descent, I have looked favorably on the idea of an independent Scotland since I was a child. But it was a sentimental concept to me. With the awareness of the hardships experienced by newly independent places, it could be difficult winning a referendum, though I hope one is held. In Canada, Quebec's independence vote in 1980 failed by 60-40 percent, mainly on worries about English-Canada's corporations pulling their jobs out of the province of Quebec if it became a nation. Sun Life of Canada did pull its headquarters out of Montreal in the lead up to the referendum, chilling the voters. Any number of England's corporations could pull something like that. Yes, Brexit reversed the trade fear factor, but in the short term before a 2nd referendum, late doubts, aka cold feet could set in.
It is quite funny that if those opposing the second referendum were right, and the Scottish people don’t want it, then they surely have nothing to worry about if that referendum happens anyway... right?
I was thinking the exact same thing, let the people decide, no need to speculate.
The SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however.
A very interesting thread on Twitter:
"There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9
In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9
... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9
A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9
But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9
So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9
Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9
In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
@@jamiewatson9264 And yet, despite all that, you didn’t contradict me, and my point still stands. If you’re right, there is literally no worry in just having another referendum to shut everyone up once and for all about it, no matter which way it goes.
Well yes, but how do we ensure they don't demand a third referendum. How about we say that if the SNP lose again, they have to disband and their MSPs must renounce all political offices? Nothing to worry about... right?
@@juliantheapostate8295 You know they have policies besides independence right? Try and stay sensible if you’re trying to make a counterpoint.
I would however agree that they can’t ask for another referendum for at least 50 years on the basis they can have another one now.
Looks like you swapped the logo of the Scottish Greens and the Green Party of England and Wales. Not a biggie - thanks for providing such clear impartial news
Call it an assembly too
They explained at the beginning that they would use the wider recognised logo.
1. They are not National Assemblies they are a Senedd and a Scottish PARLIAMENT
2. They use ADDITIONAL member system
Scots NOT Scott’s 🤦
Exactly. Why we want away basically in a nutshell.
4:10 the Scottish Greens have a different logo to that of the English and Welsh party.
0:32 "Note: Parties that have developed branches in Scotland and Wales have variations on their national logo, but for simplicity's sake, we'll be using these."
@@sammiddleton7663 But the Scottish Greens are actually a separate party, they are not a devolved branch of the Green Party (which should be clear enough from its full title, the Green Party of England and Wales)
@@sammiddleton7663 The Scottish Greens are a completely different party from the English & Welsh Greens, they're not a branch like the Scottish conservatives, labour, or libdems
Different policies too. More left wing
As a voter in England I'd like the ability to vote in a referendum to kick Scotland out of the Union.
Haha you really showed them with that last laugh! Now, let’s go back to talking about why they are whinny bitches who should also shut up and stay in the union because they depend on us. That way we win either way! That’s sustainable right?
54% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties. EU officials just came out yesterday and said that it would take about 15 years for Scotland to join. Scotland's economy will be worse off about 6x by leaving the UK, *AND* studies have shown that joining the EU will not help. Also, the SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however.
A very interesting thread on Twitter:
"There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9
In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9
... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9
A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9
But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9
So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9
Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9
In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
In the end I think that England will push as much as it can to stop this referendum, while SNP will do the opposite.
In the end Scots will have to push a lot if they want this second chance, nobody is willing to give it to them without a harsh fight. And it's right so, everyone tries to push for its own interests.
Nonetheless it will be engaging, History is moving again in Europe, despite many of us think the opposite.
i wish the best to Scotland in its inevitable freedom. from Uruguay
it will be interesting to see if we end up with a reunited Ireland before the end of the decade. interesting times for sure.
How much money do you want to bet on that?
Saying you want a referendum is not the same thing as saying you want to leave the Union.
Long live Scotland 🤘 🏁💪from hungary!!!! ♥♥ 🏴🏴🏴🏴
Éljen a Magyar! ❤️️🇭🇺❤️️ Skóciából!!! (Hope that's right 😂)
@@adhamhthomson1941 👍👍👍 :-)
The SNP failed to get a majority. The SNP have failed in what the said would be a mandate (and let's not pretend here - they had a majority in coalition with the Greens already, so where is this mandate that Sleazy Sturgeon proclaimed, she said that if the SNP got a majority, but the SNP did **not**). In fact, the SNP have less seats now than they did 10 years ago. The SNP are in decline. The EU will not even consider membership for Scotland in less than 15 years. There is NOT a big majority for an independence referendum, only 42% of polled Scots want independence, 54% support the Union (and only around 25% of Scots even want a 2nd referendum at all !!! They do not approve of Shitstain Sturgeon - even 60% of Greens don't want independence, even though the official position of the Greens party is for it). The whole thing is a joke and it's not going to happen. The lies of the SNP gibber ever onwards however.
A very interesting thread on Twitter:
"There's a widespread expectation among Westminster-based journalists and foreign correspondents reporting from London that a huge constitutional bust up between Sturgeon and Johnson is inevitable. But it's not clear the British government has to do anything 1/9
The consensus forecast is that Sturgeon passes a bill allowing for a second independence referendum in Holyrood. Johnson moves to have it struck down by the Supreme Court because it is ultra vires (the constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster under 1998 Scotland Act) 2/9
In 2014 Westminster issued an Order under Section 30 of the Act to give Holyrood the temporary power to call a referendum. This made it legal. This time the government refuses to issue such an order. Hence the predicted stand off. But the government could sit on its hands ... 3/9
... while a private citizen takes ScotGov and Holyrood to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on the grounds they have acted beyond the law and their powers. Think of a Scottish Gina Miller, the wealthy woman who caused the Brexiteers such anguish in the Supreme Court 4/9
A "Fiona McMiller" could be even more devastating to SNP hopes of a 2nd referendum. The Johnson government need do nothing but watch it all unfold in Scotland's highest court. The Court of Session would almost certainly rule in "Fiona's" favour. 5/9
But there's more. Folks are familiar with s30 of the Act. But s29 is even more important (h/t here to superb blog by Ian Smart, a fellow Paisley buddy, I'm told). S29 says clearly that any Act of the ScotParl that is outside its competence "is not law". 6/9
So a 2nd ref Act without s30 approval would not be law. If Scot Gov instructed local authorities to proceed with a referendum, these authorities would be advised it would be illegal for them to do so. The Act could not form a legal basis for ministers to instruct 3rd parties. 7/9
Of course ScotGov could take recalcitrant town councils to court. But it would almost certainly lose. In which case even Fiona McMiller would not be be necessary. In both cases it would not be the Johnson government taking Sturgeon to court but Scottish citizens and officials 8/9
In either event, the constitutional clash between London and Edinburgh doesn't happen. The 2nd referendum is stopped by Scots in Scottish courts by Scottish judges, with the Johnson government looking on. Not quite the SNP playbook. 9/9"
She was promising a referendum. She has no right offering something that is not in her power to give.