Image: Creative Scotland
In a properly randomised sample of 1 500 Scots, NatCen, found:
Attitudes to Government and the Scottish Parliament:
- Two-thirds (66%) of people in Scotland trust the Scottish Government to work in Scotland’s best interests, compared with 22% who trust the UK Government to do so.
- Three-quarters (75%) of people in Scotland thought the Scottish Government ought to have the most influence over the way Scotland is run, compared with 14% who thought the UK Government should.
Views on level of tax and government priorities:
https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/scottish-social-attitudes/
- The majority of people in Scotland (64%) thought the level of taxation and spending on health, education and social benefits should be increased, 32% thought the level of taxation and spending should stay the same and 3% thought it should decrease.
- Most people (68%) agreed that income should be redistributed from the better-off to those who are less well-off, while 16% disagreed.
Talking-up Scotland 
Too bad the SNP is utterly incapable of ending the union nor does it show any sign of wanting to. I despair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And so what is YOUR solution, for ending the union.
I really would love to hear it
LikeLiked by 2 people
DAvid, I would love to hear anyone’s solution for ending the union – I mean REALLY ending it. The FM’s strategy is disparaged for possibly being undermined by the Supreme Court decision still to come. I’m not sure how much the decision actually matters for several reasons
1. It wouldnt surprise me if the Conservatives changed (“clarified) the Scotland Act to prevent a referendum if the Court finds in the SG’s favour
2. Of course the alternative if either the Supreme Court find against us, or WM amends the Scotland is to use the next Westminster election as a referendum, requiring not just a majority of seats but a majority of votes
3. The problem in either case, is that if we accept there is unlikely to be international recognition of Scottish independence if Westminster have not agreed to this, no matter how truculently. For instance, we could kiss gooodbye to the EU if rUK doesnt agree to our independence and it is disputed. Likewise, I suspect the UN as well. There has to be engagement with them. There just has to be.
This is the failure of everything I have read about achieving independence. There is a dispute about whether or not there should be another referendum less than 10 years after the last one. But if we get by that one – unofficial referendum, election as plebiscite, whatever – what then? Even if there is a Yes vote. What motivation is there at Westminster to engage with this? Remember the Chagos Islands. These were held back from Mauritius on their independence, and gifted to the Americans to build a giant air base. The Chagos Islanders and Mauritius have judgement in every international court you can think of, and none of it makes the slightest bit of difference. Their response to one judgement against the UK was that it was invalid because the UK chose not to be represented! I know that takes a lot of brass neck, but there doesnt seem to be a shortage.
So to everyone who berates the FM for not renouncing the Treaty of Union, using the 1688 Claim of Right, do you think , do you really believe that Westminster is going to give a rap about that? Would they even notice?
Personally – you might have noticed – about independence being achieved in any way that could be described as “easy”. On the Herald Forum I read someone draw an analogy with Ireland in the early 20th century, suggesting that the SNP are playing the role of the Irish Parliamentary Party, which operated within the constitution, while Alba plays the role of Sinn Feinn which was prepared to take more radical action. I dont think there are too many who want Scottish independence to be achieved in the same way, but perhaps what is points to is that playing the Westminster game by their rules leads nowhere, and that more disruptive action is required, certainly at Westminster and arguably in Scotland as a whole. But whatever, Westminster needs to understand – needs to be made to understand that Scottish independence is not theirs to grant but for the Scottish electorate to take.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Iamsoccerdoc
I agree with most of what you say especially the last paragraph however I respectfully dispute your comment
“The problem in either case, is that if we accept there is unlikely to be international recognition of Scottish independence if Westminster have not agreed to this”
I believe that the UN, EU and US essentially subscribe to a Rules based approach to International relations and while the UK to agreed with that the G7 club stuck together. However the UK has since gone rogue and if for example the ukg ‘clarifies’ the Scotland Act then this will rightly be seen as a further infringement of the “rules”.
IMHO in order to achieve a peaceful transition the SG needs to show the international community that it has tried and exhausted all possible democratic and legitimate courses of action within the UK. Once that box is ticked then we can go to the UN (and International opinion in general) and get them to back our claim for self determination under the UN charter. Add in the support of our diaspora then we will get the required international recognition.
The international community could threaten the UK with being kicked off the UN Security Council if the ukg doesn’t agree a Section 30 order and they will have to because ‘Global Britain’ is meaningless if the ukg is in the international political wilderness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Stewart, in formal terms you are dead right. The EU, UN and US are rules based organizations. In practice not sure at all about the US (particularly depending on who is Pres), but certainly the first two espouse the rules very clearly.
I cited the Chagos Islands as an example, but now we have dragged the US in, Ireland, the Peace Process and the Good Friday agreement seem relevant. Contrast and compare the reaction of Donald Trump and Joe Biden to the possibility that the UK government would do anything to fundamentally harm the Good Friday Agreement, the open border etc. Biden has been very clear about that being a red line. Trump? Hmmmmmmmmm. Not so sure.
Yes much politics in formal sense is rule-based, but it is also pragmatic. For instance, you wont hear the US complain about the Chagos Islands, because ultimately they are the beneficiaries (nice big airbase) but it remains wrong. But pragmatically, for the US its great.
Or lets consider what happened in Catalonia when they held their referendum. There was much hand-wringing by the international community, and a frankly a degree of condemnation that was almost unheard of for states are very unwilling to condemn others (unless they are some poor wee stupid country that no one cares about) – or as its often expressed, “interfere in the internal affairs of another country”. The EU, and other member states were clearly unhappy about the actions of the Madrid Government, and given the support of the Catalan politicians who remain in exile, probably still are. But what difference has it made? Spain remains a member of the EU in good standing. The Americans said nothing at all. And nor I think did the UN or any other international body of much standing. We all queued up to condemn it and then moved on.
I think your suggestion that Scotland “has tried and exhausted all possible democratic and legitimate courses of action within the UK” has at least one powerful supporter – the First Minister, as I think this has been the thread going through her strategy, including on Brexit. “We tried this, we tried that, we tried every avenue we could, but nothing worked”. Intellectually I think its a fine strategy, and might be more successful internally (eg in a referendum), but I worry about its pragmatic outcome internationally – will it work?
I dont think you ARE wrong, but, given their past record I wouldnt put as much weight on the support of the international community which has other “fish to fry” (eg if no S30 Order would the Yanks really pull the rug from WM, or be pleased that it means the UK’s nuclear deterrent is safe?) . I just wouldnt want to rely on them.
But looks thanks for your comment. It’s a topic well worth discussion as there is no certainty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Catalan/Spain situation in constitutional terms is quite different to the Scotland/England/UK situation. Catalonia vis a vis Spain was an internal constitutional matter hence the reluctance of the EU and international community to get involved. That did not stop individual countries within the EU expressing their disapproval of Spain’s behaviour however.
Scotland’s relationship with England is governed by the Treaty of Union which is recognised as an International Treaty therefore its situation is not similar to that of Catalonia and as such would very likely result in a quite different response from the international community and organisations such as the EU and UN if English intransigence blocked Scotland’s clearly demonstrated wish for independence via a referendum or plebiscite election. The former being the preferred option but hot the only one.
LikeLike
Dear Gunnbarrett
And so what is YOUR solution, for ending the union.
I really would love to hear it
BTW If you say UDI (or any of the many variants on that theme) can you please then explain the finer detail of a workable plan as nobody else seems to be able to?
Thank you in anticipation
LikeLiked by 3 people
My point as well. I suspect all that separates us is how much to rely on the international community.
That said, there is far too much opinion – some of it very well considered – that treats the intellectual case as overwhelming. As a former Uni Lecturer I am only too aware of the limits of the power of intellectual cases. I used to tell students doing my course on Organization, “never forget that organizations will often do what they want to do, not necessarily what they should do. They are after all, populated by human beings”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The intellectual case is purely unionist, nothing I’ve seen or heard from the FM that her planned exit from the Treaty of Union is based on anything other than Scotland’s legal position within the union, if you think otherwise, you haven’t been paying attention. The question isn’t whether Scotland can legally end the union, rather it should be whether England can legally stop it and the answer is no.
LikeLike
“Too bad the SNP is utterly incapable of ending the union nor does it show any sign of wanting to.”
Enough of the nonsense and cynicism. You seem to have “forgotten” about the Supreme Court case or the plan B GE strategy. If you have something better to offer then say so rather than making “smart” comments.
LikeLike
May I respectively suggest you read this:
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2022/10/29/the-remedy/
LikeLike
I started to have a read of the page you linked to but gave up early on. The first few paragraphs have a number of unsubstantiated claims which make it difficult to take seriously. It may sound great (or not) as some kind of cri de coeur but it is does not seem to me a serious analysis. Lots of claims made but very little to back them up. I’ll give you some examples to back up my own claims:
a) “Anglo-Norman feudalism in modern clothing has given us a despotic and unaccountable government, political corruption, cronyism, incompetence, privilege with impunity for a wealthy, powerful elite, government violation of the rule of law and government betrayal of the public trust.
Sorry but I can’t take much of that seriously. Firstly, we aren’t in a despotic system and if you think we are then provide some evidence or attempt to “redefine” despotic. The evidence pointed to is that there is no “redress” – since when? Secondly, in what sense is this caused by “anglo-norman feudalism in modern clothing” – and what on earth is that even supposed to mean?
b) “We have the highest taxes and most unfair tax system in Europe” – ah no we don’t we have one of the lowest tax rates in Europe. If you want the data on that see the OECD’s Global Revenue Statistics Database.
I’m not wasting more time on that.
LikeLike
Huge fan of Sara Salyers, but I’m struggling with how her excellent essay contradicts Cherson’ s comment or indeed invalidates the SG’s route to independence, apologies if that was not your intention.
LikeLike