Do you think Scotland should hold a second referendum

[53x13]

58 out of 59 Scottish MPs (only one Tory voted for) voted NOT to continue with the Trident nuclear submarine programme.

Scotland voted 62/38 to remain in the EU, an overwhelming result. It's clear that the people of Scotland have a very different economic and social agenda to the rUK, and also clear they have a different politic. How long can the Westminster government ignore these collateral differences between these obviously diverging nations, one pulling one way, against the others?

The Scottish people clearly have no representation when it comes to national issues affecting them. Sturgeon can call another referendum at any time. An 'advisory ' referendum (like the recent EU referendum it's not a legal preposition) would surely finish off the United Kingdom for good. A Yes vote could not be ignored.

[SpannerGeek]

I'm for Yes 100%, I certainly don't want to leave the EU and absolutely NO to nuclear weapons in my back yard. If May likes them so much, put them on a barge in the Thames. See how you like it.

This Union, post Brexit is completely broken. Let's file the divorce and get it over with asap.

[francovendee]

I'm not Scottish but if I were I would certainly want another vote. As far as I see it Scotland is moving further and further away from the general views of the UK. I really hope they get their way and leave the UK and make a success out of it. I'm sure warnings on lack of funding if they leave the union will not stop their leaving anymore than warnings did for the UK on Brexit

[Psamathe]

... As far as I see it Scotland is moving further and further away from the general views of the UK....

I don't know enough about Scottish politics to know how Scottish politic is "moving" but I do wonder if the UK is the one doing the moving (or a significant part of the "moving). With Osborne's economic stupidity and IDS's treatment of the vulnerable and now an unrestricted Conservative government (unrestricted by Lib Dems - who I retrospectively consider did have a moderating influence); they talk about their social agenda and then put in place measures to make the rich richer paid for by the less well-off and vulnerable.

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

58 out of 59 Scottish MPs (only one Tory voted for) voted NOT to continue with the Trident nuclear submarine programme.

Apparently though the Scottish electorate is evenly split on Trident. The reason nearly all Scottish MPs voted against is that they're nearly all SNP. And of course under the FPTP system the SNP got 95% of the seats with 50% of the vote. Though they don't have the remit to cover defence if MSPs voted on Trident you'd probably get a better representation of what the people think.

It's interesting here that we have an argument saying - 'respect how democratically elected MPs are voting' while at the same time over the Labour leadership the argument is 'ignore the democratically elected MPs - what about the Labour membership?'

[Psamathe]

...
It's interesting here that we have an argument saying - 'respect how democratically elected MPs are voting' while at the same time over the Labour leadership the argument is 'ignore the democratically elected MPs - what about the Labour membership?'

I don't see those as the same. The electorate elects MPs - so there is a question about the electorate or the MPs views being more important. However, "party members" seem a weird self selecting group and one wonders what role they should play in determining the decisions made for the electorate. So to say "party members want e.g. no more austerity" - shouldn't the real question be what the electorate want or what MPs (elected by the electorate) want. We complain about companies lobbying government to get what they want but in some respects party members (who have paid money to join the party) are doing something similar when trying to determine what MPs do.

Ian

[bovlomov]

It's interesting here that we have an argument saying - 'respect how democratically elected MPs are voting' while at the same time over the Labour leadership the argument is 'ignore the democratically elected MPs - what about the Labour membership?'

How centralised is the SNP? The problem with many Labour MPs is the way they were selected - parachuted in by party managers, often against the wishes of local members, and sometimes by bending rules. Now there's a huge gap between MPs and members. Since the recent rule change (that I believe was supported by most of the PLP), members are enjoying the new power they have. Unintended consequences.

[Ben@Forest]

I don't know if the SNP has changed its position but before the last referendum it decided it would be in NATO post-independence so would join a first-strike policy nuclear alliance. A couple of MSPs resigned over that.

[Ben@Forest]

The problem with many Labour MPs is the way they were selected - parachuted in by party managers, often against the wishes of local members, and sometimes by bending rules. Now there's a huge gap between MPs and members. Since the recent rule change (that I believe was supported by most of the PLP), members are enjoying the new power they have. Unintended consequences.

I have to agree that I think a lot of Labour's problems stem from no longer having sufficient MPs who are representative of their communities. Neither Miliband was/is vaguely representative of South Shields or Doncaster, but having said that I don't think Corbyn and his loyal following are either.

[bovlomov]

I have to agree that I think a lot of Labour's problems stem from no longer having sufficient MPs who are representative of their communities. Neither Miliband was/is vaguely representative of South Shields or Doncaster, but having said that I don't think Corbyn and his loyal following are either.

I guess party managers decided that centrally appointed candidates have a better chance of electoral success. They're probably right. But members seem to be thinking, if electoral success means giving up any idea of socialism, it's not worth a bean.

By the way, I disagree with the widely held opinion that principles are useless if you are not in government. UKIP have had great influence nationally, with only one MP. In the past the BNPs rise prompted many mainstream politicians (Margaret Hodge, most famously) to move into BNP territory, on immigration. If any party articulated policies that resonate, other parties will move in to steal them. So parties can influence things without discarding principles.

[irc]

. How long can the Westminster government ignore these collateral differences between these obviously diverging nations, one pulling one way, against the others?

The diverging nation that voted 55% for remaining in the UK less than 2 years ago? We have far more in common with the UK than we have with countries further away in Europe. A second ref would get the same result. Sturgeon will be very wary of calling one because another loss would put the issue to bed for years.

[ambodach]

A lot of the 55% who voted to remain in UK are now disenchanted as they realise that much of what the media spouted at them were blatant lies. Scotland for centuries has had close ties with continental Europe. At one time they were very prominent in Poland and many had ties with France.and Holland. Some of my ancestors fled to Holland during religious strife and settled there becoming doctors to the Dutch royal family. Look at the architecture on the east coast which has European influence.One reason the English were so keen to get control over Scotland was to dish the French who had close ties with Scotland.

[Ben@Forest]

One reason the English were so keen to get control over Scotland was to dish the French who had close ties with Scotland.

And of course one reason the French were keen to have close ties with Scotland was to dish the English. And the French let the Scots down many, many times. Look at the 1745 uprising where the French promised to land an army but never did.

[Psamathe]

A lot of the 55% who voted to remain in UK are now disenchanted as they realise that much of what the media spouted at them were blatant lies.....

Also, to a degree it can be about how things sound during a campaign. So the SNP start "We are being forced by Westminster to take Trident against our will" and many will focus on the "forced by Westminster ... against our will" and probably not think so much about what is being forced (and that they might e.g. be marginally in favour of Trident). Such things probably only apply to people who e.g. don't have strong views on Trident, but it can sway quite a few because they don't like "being forced by Westminster" more than the e.g. "really want Trident".

And SNP can have quite a few now e.g. forced to take Trident, e.g. forced to leave the EU.

Ian

[irc]

It works both ways. Last time the SNP made some fantasy economic projections based on the high price of oil amongst other things. Two years on and Scotland had a deficit of 14.9Bn in 2015, per capita twice that of the UK.

Meanwhile in The Herald today George Kerovan, part of an SNP group looking at currency options for an independent Scotland says it would require selling off Scotland's public assets to bankroll it. He also said spending cuts or tax rises would be needed. A bit harder to sell than the utopia promised last time.

As for anecdotes I know yes voters from last time who would switch to no as they think a Brexit UK would be better than a Scotland in the EU.