Scottish independence referendum 2017?

[Clyde1998]

Panelbase (13-17 Mar): Yes 42% (-2); No 53% (+2)

Panelbase have been the most no-friendly pollster since the EU referendum, closely followed by YouGov, but this is their largest no percentage since they've started polling on independence and is the largest no percentage in any opinion poll (which includes undecided voters) since the 4-7 August 2014 YouGov poll. A 2% movement in the numbers isn't statistically significant, however, but the next few polls will confirm or deny any trend.

Average of most recent poll from each pollster (YouGov, Survation, Ipsos Mori, BMG, Panelbase)
Yes - 42.0% (-0.4)
No - 47.8% (+0.4)

[Clyde1998]

Where did all the Wales stuff go btw? Never got around to reading it. 

The talk about Wales started here on a separate thread.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Trouble is the SNP would find it in their interest to play by the book. Not that they should care too much about Westminster, but they want to prove to their international partners (who above all dislike fuss and uncertainty) that they are reasonable and calm (or at least, more reasonable and calm than the rUK). A UDI might make EU accession talks more difficult, for example, because the key players would start to think that Scotland is hasty (if there is one thing the EU hates, it's doing anything without mulling it over for about seventy years).

[vileplume]

May edging towards doing The Full Rajoy.

Rajoy says the referendum has to be country-wide.

I think the British Tories are much much less passionate about unionism than the Spanish Populares, partly because the Populares know that the Catalan issue helps them stay relevant whereas the Tories have no stake in Scotland.

However, I think May is one of the few who is passionate about the Union, and Sturgeon is exploiting that to bang the nationalist war drum. Ganesh of the FT was on to something when he said this was a move designed to strengthen the SNP's support after a rough time.

The Scottish independence issue is actually helping a Tory recovery of sorts in Scotland as it appears to have detoxified their brand somewhat (at least with 'No' voters). It will be interesting to see how well they do in the council elections in May, apparently they are even targeting some of the more middle class, more 'No' Glasgow wards to try to increase their number of councillors in the city from the pitiful 1 they currently have.

[vileplume]

Sky has a poll of 2,000 Scottish voters about their opinion on various politicians:

Theresa May: good 48%, bad 47% (+1 lol)
Jeremy Corbyn: good 16%, bad 77% (-61 but I thought Jezza was supposed to win back Scotland)
Nicola Sturgeon: good 42%, bad 54% (-12 lol)
Kezia Dugdale: good 36%, bad 50% (-14)
Ruth Davidson: good 53%, bad 36% (+17)

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-doing-better-job-than-nicola-sturgeon-scottish-poll-10809174

[Pandaguineapig]

I thought Sturgeon was incredibly popular in Scotland? What happened?

[vileplume]

I thought Sturgeon was incredibly popular in Scotland? What happened?

She's more polarising than popular. Most of those who support independence really like her those who oppose it really don't.

[Clyde1998]

The Scottish Parliament debate on holding a second referendum has been suspended, and thus today's vote on holding a second referendum has been postponed, due to the incident in London.

[Clyde1998]

The Scottish Parliament has passed an amended motion calling for a second referendum by 69 (SNP/Greens) to 59 (Conservatives/Labour/Lib Dems). The Green amendment, passed by the same margin, was to allow 16 and 17 year olds and EU Citizens to vote, as with other elections in Scotland.

Scottish Secretary David Mundell has already stated that the UK Government will oppose a referendum before Brexit is completed. Professor John Curtice seems to believe that the Scottish Government has the right to call a consultative referendum without the concent of the British Government.

[Former President tack50]

Am I the only one who thinks this will go nowhere other than a Catalonia-Spain style standoff? At least until Brexit is done with I am sure Scotland will not leave (not to mention Spain probably vetoing any chance of Scotland remaining, so Scotland will be outside the EU for a couple years)

Maybe after Brexit is finished a referendum will be allowed, though considering the 2020 election would be less than a year off if I'm not mistaken Scotland would probably have to wait until 2020. After that I do see Scotland getting a 2nd referendum, unless the Tories think they'll benefit from "defending Britain's unity" or something like that (like PP and Cs here, though most of PSOE is opposed as well so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it's increasingly likely that Scotland will not necessarily join the EU if they leave, but join EFTA instead.

[Clyde1998]

I think it's increasingly likely that Scotland will not necessarily join the EU if they leave, but join EFTA instead.

Aye. It's likely that EFTA will be most likely destination for a post-indy Scotland in the short term - as it would require much less negotiations and would give Scotland an easy route into the EEA while any application to join the EU as a full member is processed.

[Lord Halifax]

I think it's increasingly likely that Scotland will not necessarily join the EU if they leave, but join EFTA instead.

Aye. It's likely that EFTA will be most likely destination for a post-indy Scotland in the short term - as it would require much less negotiations and would give Scotland an easy route into the EEA while any application to join the EU as a full member is processed.

Its doubtful whether the EFTA countries would accept new members, who are only using the organization as a temporary pitstop on their way to EU membership (and that goes for the UK as well).

[Clyde1998]

Hard to see Westminster use military force against Scotland if they issued an UDI.

Just leaving this here: https://www.ft.com/content/391f0114-17a1-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87

[Tintrlvr]

Hard to see Westminster use military force against Scotland if they issued an UDI.

Just leaving this here: https://www.ft.com/content/391f0114-17a1-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87

Using force to prevent Gibraltar from being removed from British rule against its will (and when support for British rule is not just a majority but nearly unanimous) seems quite different from using force to stop Scotland from leaving the UK after a majority of Scotland has voted for independence.

[Clyde1998]

Hard to see Westminster use military force against Scotland if they issued an UDI.

Just leaving this here: https://www.ft.com/content/391f0114-17a1-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87

Using force to prevent Gibraltar from being removed from British rule against its will (and when support for British rule is not just a majority but nearly unanimous) seems quite different from using force to stop Scotland from leaving the UK after a majority of Scotland has voted for independence.

If they'd use force against another NATO member, why wouldn't they use force against Scotland in the event of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence?

[Dan the Roman]

Hard to see Westminster use military force against Scotland if they issued an UDI.

Just leaving this here: https://www.ft.com/content/391f0114-17a1-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87

Using force to prevent Gibraltar from being removed from British rule against its will (and when support for British rule is not just a majority but nearly unanimous) seems quite different from using force to stop Scotland from leaving the UK after a majority of Scotland has voted for independence.

If they'd use force against another NATO member, why wouldn't they use force against Scotland in the event of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence?

They would be unlikely to use military force. But they could use economic force. Remember, the Scottish government has no source of revenue except that provided by London. In the event that was cutoff, the Scottish government would come to a halt, as Spain, whatever its views on independence for Scotland, would almost certainly oppose unilateral declarations of independence by regional legislatures with constitutional authority to do so. Scotland would be unable to even borrow money when faced with a hostile UK, not to mention a United States which would take Britain's side in an instant when one considers the history between Donald Trump and the SNP. Who would lend to them? How would they pay salaries? Scotland is barely viable independent state even with a reluctantly cooperative UK bending over backwards to give them a favorable departure. With the Bank of England, the English NHS, and the Border Agency refusing to recognize the legal existence of the Scottish government or any of its officials, and refusing to cash its checks the whole thing would descend into farce.

The Scottish government would have no resources, no money, and no friends outside maybe Guy Verhodstadt in such a scenario. It would have at least two security council vetoes of any applications for UN membership or to join any international bodies(the US and UK, and it is up in the air if Russia and China would let a desire to cause chaos override principles which dictate they would be hostile). It would cause untold problems for the EU, and Merkel, Tusk, and everyone else would blame Sturgeon for making their lives complicated for no reason greater than delusional self-importance.

[Clyde1998]

Hard to see Westminster use military force against Scotland if they issued an UDI.

Just leaving this here: https://www.ft.com/content/391f0114-17a1-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87

Using force to prevent Gibraltar from being removed from British rule against its will (and when support for British rule is not just a majority but nearly unanimous) seems quite different from using force to stop Scotland from leaving the UK after a majority of Scotland has voted for independence.

If they'd use force against another NATO member, why wouldn't they use force against Scotland in the event of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence?

They would be unlikely to use military force. But they could use economic force. Remember, the Scottish government has no source of revenue except that provided by London. In the event that was cutoff, the Scottish government would come to a halt, as Spain, whatever its views on independence for Scotland, would almost certainly oppose unilateral declarations of independence by regional legislatures with constitutional authority to do so. Scotland would be unable to even borrow money when faced with a hostile UK, not to mention a United States which would take Britain's side in an instant when one considers the history between Donald Trump and the SNP. Who would lend to them? How would they pay salaries? Scotland is barely viable independent state even with a reluctantly cooperative UK bending over backwards to give them a favorable departure. With the Bank of England, the English NHS, and the Border Agency refusing to recognize the legal existence of the Scottish government or any of its officials, and refusing to cash its checks the whole thing would descend into farce.

The Scottish government would have no resources, no money, and no friends outside maybe Guy Verhodstadt in such a scenario. It would have at least two security council vetoes of any applications for UN membership or to join any international bodies(the US and UK, and it is up in the air if Russia and China would let a desire to cause chaos override principles which dictate they would be hostile). It would cause untold problems for the EU, and Merkel, Tusk, and everyone else would blame Sturgeon for making their lives complicated for no reason greater than delusional self-importance.

The impact of the economic force would depend on how quickly Scotland declared a UDI; if time was taken to set up the independent bodies necessary before declaring independence, it could greatly reduce the impact - mainly if the Scottish Government could quickly redirect tax revenues to Holyrood than than Westminster. Although, IMO, economic sanctions would be an acceptance of Scottish independence, rather than opposition, per se, as it would only reinforce that Scotland is separate from the rest of the United Kingdom.

In terms of international stand points, it would depend on the context of how a mandate, if any, for independence was achieved. If it was after a, non-UK sanctioned, referendum on a high turnout that went 'Yes' then international leaders may be more sympathetic to Scotland's position than if the Scottish Parliament just turned around and said "we're independent" without any solid mandate.

The EU probably would be more accommodating than the US, although there would be no chance of membership in the short term (at least), as Scotland reaffirmed it's desire to remain in the EU in June last year. Depending on the timing of a UDI, it could affect the Brexit negotiations. Getting the support of the EU would be more important than the support of the US for economic reasons - Scotland does about three times the amount of trade with the EU than the US.

In terms of public services, the Scottish NHS has always been separate from the English NHS. Additionally, as everyone living in Scotland, who are currently so, would remain British citizens, the Border agency wouldn't be able to "contain" Scots unless citizenship was stripped. The Russians would probably recognise Scottish independence in any context.

Obviously, we're talking about a very unlikely scenario and the worst scenario for all parties - at the worst I can see the UK Government saying "we're not going to negotiate anything, but Scotland's independent" if there is some sort of solid mandate for independence.

[Simfan34]

Sky has a poll of 2,000 Scottish voters about their opinion on various politicians:

Theresa May: good 48%, bad 47% (+1 lol)
Jeremy Corbyn: good 16%, bad 77% (-61 but I thought Jezza was supposed to win back Scotland)
Nicola Sturgeon: good 42%, bad 54% (-12 lol)
Kezia Dugdale: good 36%, bad 50% (-14)
Ruth Davidson: good 53%, bad 36% (+17)

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-doing-better-job-than-nicola-sturgeon-scottish-poll-10809174

May has real incentive to govern as the leader of a national party.

[IceAgeComing]

That wouldn't be a particularly great idea; since it would lead to Davidson being marginalised and she's much more popular (+1 for an English Tory is remarkable enough; *+17* with over 50% saying good is remarkable to any politician, never mind the leader of the Scottish Tories).  There's also the fact that in most issues Scotland is separate because of devolution either because of the fact that the Parliament has powers in those areas or because of the different perspective that people here can have because of devolution: which means that the Scottish party does need its own leader and its own voice even for reserved matters.

Blair and Brown governed as leaders of a "national" party, and that was one of the main issues that sank them before 2015 (Lamont's "branch office" comments swung the polls by a huge margin instantly to the point where a neck-and-neck Westminster race quickly turned into a 30 point SNP lead that Labour never improved their numbers from - Murphy was also linked to the London party very closely which might have been a factor in them not recovering, also that's probably more him being an unlikable man with no ability to actually lead a party; especially compared to Ruth Davidson who, as much as it pains me to say this, is a good leader who puts a human face on the Tories and that's something that they've not had in Scotland for a very, very long time; even before 1997), the Conservatives going down the same route really wouldn't help them in the long run: especially if they can't find a good replacement for Davidson when she eventually decides to stand down (I can't imagine that will be any time soon though).

The fact is that most Scots are small-n nationalists even if they don't support independence, and there'd be some level of resentment towards any perception of the London party interfering to any great extent with the Scottish party.  That's why I'm 99% sure that May's numbers will fall dramatically over the next couple of years: the typical complications of Brexit are added to here by the fact that the Scottish Government want lots of the powers currently held by the EU to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament post-Brexit (fishing is the most obvious one that comes to mind) and there's mixed attitudes towards that in the Tory party south of the border: the feeling seems to be that if they devolved more powers that might increase attitudes towards independence and if those powers don't shift then the SNP (and actually all of the non-Tory parties really, this one isn't an independence/unionist divide issue) will go down the "post-Brexit we were promised more powers, but all has happened is that powers have been moved from Brussels to London" route which would probably work really.

[Clyde1998]

YouGov poll (24-27 Apr):

Thinking about the upcoming general election, how important is a political party's stance on whether Scotland should be an independent country to your decision to vote for them?

• I could only vote for a party that wants Scotland to be an independent country - 18% (40% Yes; 2% No)
• I would prefer to vote for a party that wants Scotland to be an independent country, but it is not essential to my decision - 18% (35% Yes, 5% No)
• It does not make a difference to my decision to vote for a party whether they want Scotland to be independent or stay in the UK - 13% (12% Yes, 13% No)
• I would prefer to vote for a party that wants Scotland to stay in the UK, but it is not essential to my decision to vote - 15% (5% Yes; 25% No)
• I could only vote for a party that wants Scotland to stay in the UK - 27% (3% Yes; 50% No)

And, as far as you are aware, what is the official policy for each of the following parties on whether Scotland should be an independent country or stay in the UK?

• Labour - Independence - 3%; Union - 68%; Doesn't have one - 5%; Don't Know - 23%
• SNP - Independence - 88%; Union - 2%; Doesn't have one - 1%; Don't Know - 8%
• Conservatives - Independence - 1%; Union - 81%; Doesn't have one - 2%; Don't Know - 16%
• Lib Dem - Independence - 3%; Union - 56%; Doesn't have one - 8%; Don't Know - 33%
• Greens - Independence - 48%; Union - 12%; Doesn't have one - 8%; Don't Know - 31%

If you are in a constituency in which your preferred party has little chance of winning, which are you most likely to do?

• Vote for my preferred party anyway - 51% (43% of 2015 Con, 47% Lab; 37% Lib; 65% SNP)
• Vote for the party most likely to stop the Conservatives even if it's not my preferred party - 14%  (2% Con, 15% Lab; 9% Lib; 18% SNP)
• Vote for the party most likely to stop the SNP even if it's not my preferred party - 17% (43% Con, 27% Lab, 47% Lib, 5% SNP)
• Vote for the party most likely to stop the Labour even if it's not my preferred party - 2% (2% Con, 1% Lab, 0% Lib, 1% SNP)
• Vote in some other way - 2% (5% Con, 1% Lab, 0% Lib, 2% SNP)
• Not vote at all - 6% (1% Con, 1% Lab, 1% Lib, 4% SNP)
• Don't Know - 8% (4% Con, 8% Lab, 5% Lib, 5% SNP)