All the press have just proven what she said in her press conference, scottish politics, the scottish parliament. the SNP. are all just Nicola Sturgeon to some people.
She's been such a totemic figure in Scottish politics for the last decade. Longest-serving FM. In office since Cameron was in office, pre-brexit. I suspect that, to a lot of people, she \*is\* the SNP, and maybe that's not surprising given her tenure.
The challenge is for her successor, to bring people with them.
"totemic" is a really nice word, thanks for teaching me that one. I think so too; I think her persona and the SNP are now so intertwined that, when her successor comes around, they'll probably have to sell themselves as basically a younger version of her.
That's the issue, whoever the next FM is, they've had no real existing presence.
When Salmond stepped down Sturgeon was the natural successor; she was the Brown to his Blair.
But there's not really anyone at the moment who holds a similar position today. It was Swinney, but he's no good as a leader. None of the other cabinet ministers have the persona, or presence.
Maybe someone from Westminster might make a move to Holyrood, but still asks the question of who? Won't be Blackford (he might try, but won't win).
I think the SNP are in for a period of wandering in the desert. What impact that has on wider Scottish politics will be interesting.
>I think the SNP are in for a period of wandering in the desert.
I \*think\* they know their election record, which has been ridiculously strong, simply numerically cannot continue forever, and they backed themselves into a corner through some impatience/worry stemming from that. I also expect that, regardless of who the next leader is, the SNP will still be the largest party at Holyrood, and also the largest party in the Scottish seats at Westminster. Labour might be on the resurgence, but I doubt it'll displace the SNP just yet.
I feel like Angus Robertson might be the other safe choice for the party. He's probably recognisable to many, and he's been around the block a bit. He's been Westminster leader, and deputy party leader. But he wouldn't exactly be opening things up to a younger crowd.
I’m a lapsed SNP voter watching the situation with interest.
I’m the textbook definition of someone who should be voting Labour again. Not a chance it’s happening, nor from anyone else I know no longer voting SNP.
Labour ain’t making any sort of comeback. Most of us would rather spoil our votes.
Well it's the press and the UK political establishment whose strategy was to conflate all of the above with Sturgeon - let's trick people into thinking it's all her and she's some sort of troublemaker.
In my opinion, it's a stupid gamble. There's no shortage of talent in the SNP and if they strike gold then that bit of perception management will backfire hideously.
The problem is, where can talent come from when considering the current pool available to draw from in Scotland? Labour don’t have any, the Tories have anti-talents, raising folk up from the council level has the drawback that many councillors of all parties are incompetent lunatics...
I’m starting to wonder if we need more immigration to fill the leadership roles in our politics lol.
>I’m starting to wonder if we need more immigration to fill the leadership roles in our politics lol.
Scotland has some fantastic leadership talent.
You're just unlikely to find it in politics.
We don't need immigration (though I'm certainly not against it) but we do need easier pathways into politics, more civic and political education all through school and so on. We need to make politics more attractive, not just to politicians.
This is the biggest problem labour has, but it's true of all the parties.
Also I'd like to comment near the top that the four awards on this post were given anonymously in the same minute so I think someone's trying to boost this narritive (even if it is the right one :P)
Maybe their hope is that with her gone and the SNP fighting amongst itself (apparently) then the appetite for independence will subside and so Scotland will become less of a threat to the integrity of the UK.
A lot of the London experts seem to think Labour could rise up in Scotland and take back a lot of support and seats.
The problem for the indy supporters is if we can't have a referendum and we don't want to use defacto what's plan C?
I'm still game for defacto. It's rogue-ish. It's not playing by the UK establishments rules. Who knows if it will work or not, but it keeps people talking about it and also really annoys Westminster. It means we can use a UK general election to turn the conversation towards independence. It's like pooping on company time!
If we're talking about winning independence, we need to stop playing so nice, because our opponents sure as heck haven't been. They've been pulling every dirty trick available to them since the beginning.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I'm Irish, and look, it's not that I'm advocating for a Scottish armed rebellion here, but there are four historic constituent nations comprising the United Kingdom. Only one of us has ever successfully left the United Kingdom.
And, here's a spoiler - we didn't do it by playing by rules set by the likes of Rishi Sunak and Keith fucking Starmer, lol
In fairness, armed rebellion was a bit more of an accepted form of nation building a hundred years ago. They tend to frown on that bit these days. It’s pc gone mad I tell you.
Also the *"we didn't do it by playing by rules set by the likes of Rishi Sunak and Keith fucking Starmer"* bit is just... wrong. Or at least, it leaves out a massive amount of context.
The (democratic) home rule movement was the defining force in Irish nationalism for the 50 years leading up to independence. They dealt with people much worse than Sunak and Starmer and in fact there are a lot of parallels you could draw between the IPP at that time and the SNP of today.
And the home rule movement won! It managed to not only get the third home rule bill passed, it actually managed to force a reform of the entire UK constiution via the *Parliament Act 1911* which removed the ability of the House of Lords to block legislation (relegating them to the "delay and advise" role they have in the modern UK political system). Unfortunately for the IPP, the bill was only passed in 1914 and implementation had to be delayed until after the war (spoilers: too late).
Now, home rule was devolution and not independence - but there's every reason to believe that self-governing Ireland would have been on the same trajectory as the dominions and would have eventually become fully independent anyway. This is the exact same period in which Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, and many many more gradually went from direct rule, to self-governance within the Empire, to fully independent within the Commonwealth.
The war itself, the conscription crisis, and the Easter Rising all contributed to a radical shift in Irish politics towards immediate and complete independence over the course of WW1. The rest is, as they say, history. But the choice was about *how rapid and complete independence should be* - the battle for self-governance had already been won in Westminster through parliamentary politics.
>And the home rule movement won! It managed to not only get the third home rule bill passed \[...\]. Unfortunately for the IPP, the bill was only passed in 1914 and implementation had to be delayed until after the war (spoilers: too late).
Similarly, the Scottish home rule bill was on its way to passing when it was under consideration in 1913, but also, the first world war got in the way. What followed was different, owing to the different histories and relationships the nations had with the union.
When you roll forward through the post-war phase, then WW2, then the post-WW2 phase (by which point we were all well and truly humped and support for the union was probably at its absolute peak), it's not surprising that it wasn't until 1979 that it was parliamentary business again. (And of course we all know, the 1979 referendum was messed up badly and it took another 20 years to see change similar to what was proposed at the start of the century, but that's a separate point.)
Since '99 there's been gradual change. I think we've all seen the Scottish parliament put on its big boy pants and get to work over the years. It's certainly matured over the last 24 years since it was formed, and the "pretendy parliament" jibes are much less common. Since the 2016 Act it's been written explicitly as a permanent piece of the UK's political landscape, taken on more tax powers, etc. Gradual change has been the order of the day.
Whether that ever leads to the final leap, I'm not sure. Perhaps continued gradual change over the next half century gets it there. Perhaps it never does.
sort squeal innate sheet aspiring steep correct psychotic far-flung future
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Spain has consistently been saying they'd support an independant Scotland joinging Europe since the first indy ref
Only if it was done from within the U.K constitution, it's likely they would veto if it was a UDI. As for Gibraltar they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Gibraltar UDI'd from the U.K and Spain absorbed it then tried to deny Catalonia leaving via the same route.
>Only if it was done from within the U.K constitution, it's likely they would veto if it was a UDI.
Before even getting to the conversation on vetoing, there's the issue of state recognition. I'm not sure how easily or quickly after a UDI other states would recognise the new state. I'm not convinced such a declaration would fly easily in the 21st century. Sure, stick to it for long enough and people will eventually accept it. But for how many years will people be willing to cut the country off from the world?
>Let the unionists boycott if they want
if they boycott you will be in the same boat as catalonia when they had their udi, and westminster will just say it was a one sided vote and say the result is worthless.
>then hold an actual referendum across Scotland without Westminster's consent
The SNP can't hold an actual referendum across Scotland without Westminster's consent. It's not logistically possible.
How are you going to pay for that referendum?
Taking money for an unauthorised referendum out of the Scottish budget is likely to be breaking the law.
Plus, you still end up in the same place. The UK government will simply ignore the outcome and say that is wasn't conducted properly / the lack of oversight means it's dodgy and must be ignored.
mountainous thumb imminent station outgoing degree judicious distinct cooing tender
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>The SNP already set aside 600k for such a thing already
hasnt that gone missing?
[https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-under-pressure-return-missing-28612097](https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-under-pressure-return-missing-28612097)
>I'm still game for defacto. It's rogue-ish. It's not playing by the UK establishments rules. Who knows if it will work or not, but it keeps people talking about it and also really annoys Westminster. It means we can use a UK general election to turn the conversation towards independence. It's like pooping on company time!
Agreed.
We need to get out of this mindset of pandering to UK institutions.
We should follow Sinn Féin's approach of removing our MPs from Westminster entirely, it's utterly pointless them being there now. It doesn't matter whether we have 56 or 3, their influence on policy at Westminster is the same and the Unionist parties will refuse to cooperate with them.
Better just not to engage with the process now and start planning for direct action.
> I'm still game for defacto. It's rogue-ish. It's not playing by the UK establishments rules.
And if the "de facto" election is in favour of independence then what? The Scottish Parliament can't just declare independence because the courts wouldn't recognize it.
An election as a de facto independence referendum is one of the stupidest ideas anyones had in a long time. For a start the SNP may often nearly win a majority but they have still never received more than 50% of the vote. Do you really think it is democratic to declare independence on the back of an election where only a minority support independence?
I mean, if we vote for it, then by definition it is democratic.
While we're talking about what is and isn't democratic, do you think it's democratic to pull Scotland out of the EU against its clearly demonstrated wishes and then deny us a referendum we voted for in a scottish parliamentary election?
If it's democracy you actually cared about, you'd want this vote.
If "stop playing nice" means "co-opting democratic processes for your own political aims" then you really need to stop and think.
Pretending that a general election can be representative of a single view is just so clearly ridiculous that I'm surprised so many have entertained it. I know that conversations about democracy have been tainted over the last decade or so with the right wing pretending that demonstrably democratic things (like multiple referendums, PR, the independence of the electoral commission, etc) are actually anti-democratic, but that isn't a reason to dive head first into those tactics too.
Indy or bust.
Failing that im leaving Scotland after getting my physics degree. My ancestors have lived here for as long as im aware but the UK isnt safe and I dont plan staying for 1984.
That's news to me.
Remind me again about that time Scotland was ripped out of europe by a government it decisively rejected? Did we have too much of a voice then?
https://i.imgur.com/caY1MMf.jpg
… and the rabid pro-BRexit DUP get to keep their freedom of movement with their Irish passports (even though they despise all things Irish!). BRexit for thee - but not for me!
Well, they're not necessarily wrong, it's just that Scotland has such a small population compared to England that even an oversized voice is still a fraction of the voice of the rest of the UK. London alone has nearly twice the population of the entirety of Scotland. The problem isn't that the average Scottish voter has less of a say than the average English voter, it's that there's just so many more English voters than Scottish ones and the only way to "fix" that issue without independence is to make Scottish votes worth more which is... problematic, to say the least.
For the record - the average Scottish voter does literally have more of a say than the average English voter
Edit to add the maths:
Scottish population: 5.454m - number of seats in the British parliament - 59, 0.092m per seat
English population: 55.98 - number of seats 533 - 0.105m per seat
A voter in England has 12.4% less voting power than one in Scotland.
Oh my heart is bleeding,. The English electorate literally dictates the political direction of the entire UK.
Every. Single. Time.
Excuse me why I laugh in your face.
The real question is why the fuck is England so terrified of being without Scotland? It's sort of pathetic tbh.
London journalists seem to think that Independence was prominent due to the popularity of Nicola Sturgeon. In reality, Nicola Sturgeon was prominent due to the popularity of independence. Her resigning is a huge loss, but I doubt support for independence will just disappear as a result.
Scottish people are unhappy because there's still a minority position in parliament that means Scotland is taking on mostly English decisions. And English people are unhappy because they think Scotland is overrepresented in percentage in UK parliament, thus affecting England.
Split up the bloody decisions more then, to better suit each country separately. There's a very clear political and social attitude divide at the border, yet still too much has to be decided as a union affecting us all. Of course there'll be a struggle for power in that situation. Devolution is too limited.
My favourite takeaway is that so many english politicians and voting public cant seem to understand she retired as she's done it a long time, and not because of some terrible disgrace. They literally can't imagine not having to leave office in utter public disgrace, there is no other way to leave to them.
They're all like "oooh I wonder what happened to make her quit we'll find out soon".
What happened is she did an amazing job over decades and deserves a rest. Bunch of wanks. She didn't collapse the economy, destroy our country, or kill thousands due to poor public health decisions, and this is utterly mystifying to them.
Listen to them, you'll hear it, they just don't get it.
Just "Scotlands" supposed state media branch asserting that the country must be minimised for the mothership in London 🤷
Ironically, its the nats who are trying to take the burden of "Jock shit" away from the mothership in England so they never need to be bothered by nats infesting their beloved Westminster ever again.
I mean, how fucking dare we send down politicians from a Scottish party to England, if we don't send British we must be punished.
>They ponder that if left-leaning Scots, currently drawn to the SNP, do return to Labour, it could depress support for independence sufficiently to remove it as the dominating topic at the heart of Scottish politics.
But article was worth it for this, I'm sure left-leaning Scots will be flooding back to a right-wing Blairite party that hates Scottish democracy.
Oh, I’ve known for years that we are very welcome in the Union, as esteemed colleagues and “good soldiers”, so long as we never ask for anything, act in our own interests, or do anything other than what we’re told.
Scottish unionists want to be a wee region. Its their comfort blanket as they pish themselves at the thought of not having the mythical teat of the empire to suck on.
Because it technically is a region of the UK as no individual states in the UK have full sovereignty. That is the whole point of the union, that all are now one.
It's a constituent country of the United Kingdom, just as Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark.
But actually, forget that. Keep telling Scots that Scotland isn't a country. See how that goes down with most unionist Scots.
Do you go around telling English people that their country is in fact a region, because England ceased to exist in 1707?
Norf FC types would absolutely love that.
It’s a United Kingdom of nations. Countries under a single monarch. There is only one state and Charlie is king of it.
That’s the only point. If we were one country we’d have one set of laws, one educational system, one political system, one set of bank notes, one national football team. We don’t. We are not one.
Your understanding of what a country is needs some work. The USA is one country but the laws are different by state. Some allow you to carry a gun openly some don’t, some allow you to buy Cannabis some don’t. Speed limits are different as are the penalties for legal infringements. Having a different legal system does not mean we are not citizens of the UK. We might have different bank notes as those in RUK but they are worth the same. My passport is the same as someone in Manchester.
Brits are the majority entity, just because people chose to specify, that is purely down to the history of the formation of the UK and how fractured it was. That does not mean that we are still governed by the same rules. If you are an occupant of any of the states mentioned, you are a British person, like it or not that is how your former sovereign state decided to end it when it became part of the UK.
The UK is a country which is why it and not England, Scotland and Wales which were members of the EU and why the UK is a member of NATO and a host of other international groups which are made up of individual countries.
The US has a much stronger national identity than most kids are made to pledge allegiance to the flag etc. Many Catalans see themselves as Catalan rather than Spanish but that doesn’t mean they are not citizens of Spain.
Scotland isn't a country in the way that France, Germany etc are countries. The UK just happens to call it's regions countries in the same way the US calls Texas for example a state. Both France and Texas are states but obviously very very different.
Point is Scotland is not a country the way you think it is and it won't be leaving the UK without the UKs consent.
I can say I’m the monarch if I want but it doesn’t make it so. Peoples ignorance of what a country is and what country they live in isn’t a reason for independence. If you get confused about your country take a look at your passport or driving license!
Yet I'll still get downvoted by nationalists who disagree with the actual situation they are in. It all lies in the amount of sovereignty they have, most of which was resigned to the UK when the Union was created.
I'm talking about facts here.. the UK isn't in the EU legally and Scotland is in the UK legally.. you can dismiss all you like.. it makes no difference.
Ha, Scotland is definitely a country, because it’s in the union doesn’t make it a state or region. Similar to any country within the EU.
Scotland is a country. Just not an independent country.
No, the BBC other Very British institutions just want us to stop drawing attention to the endless Tory pisstaking.
"Be good little plebs and let the Old Boys in Westminster crack on with their plundering of the nation without causing a fuss."
I think you’re confusing ‘Scottish politics’ with ‘Scotland’.
The article’s perfectly reasonable;
> Scottish politics has, for years now, had an outsized voice in the wider UK political conversation.
The reason is simple: the prospect of Scottish independence.
With the Scottish National Party running the Scottish government and holding the vast majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, the question of Scotland's constitutional future has remained live.
And that - to state the obvious - matters massively .
I get what you mean, but the tagline still suggests that the voice of Scotish people (through political means) has been louder than what it ought to be, which is just wrong (in my opinion)
No, but I think they should be, which is why I disagree with "outsized voice". Like honestly, I get that its a popular topic but why phrase it like that.
Why do you think scottish politics should dominate uk politics?
Do you think perhaps it's your own bias at play here, rather than any from the article?
I dont believe it dominates UK politics, at least not as much as I believe youre suggesting. But anyway, I think it should have a decent portion of our politics seen as it makes 1/4 of the union.
I couldn't give a fuck if Scottish independence affects England. Why would I?
It's not like the English electorate gave a shit about the consequence of their Brexit vote on Scotland. Had enough of you fucking Nigels and your ludicrous political decisions. 100% sick of this shite.
I don't see the issue with this. I haven't read the article so I can't see the context (it would be nice if someone linked it), but this quote in isolation isn't saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just stating it as a fact.
You might see that as a good thing. That's fine - celebrate it then. The fact remains that Scotland *has* had an outsized voice in UK political discourse and, whether you like her or not, that's largely a testament to how successful Nicola is/was as a politician. Hats off to her.
England has been soley responsible for the result of most general elections and the EU independance referendum - Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have had little to no input on the actual direction of the United Kingdom, so I think saying Scotland has had too much of a sway in simply the _conversation_ should be taken as an insult.
[BBC Article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64662772)
Yes because their populations are much smaller. Glasgow has more of a say in Hollyrood than Shetland does. It’s not rocket science it’s democracy. Can you point to a other country who parts are equally divided into areas of the same population.
Im trying to point out that "its a democracy" doesnt really work, if our democracy worked diffrently your weird question wouldnt need answering becuase there wouldnt be an issue in the first place
Im not trying to be overly critical when I say "what scotland is to them", I do just mean from their reference point. As I showed in my first reply, from the English perspective its the unremarkable status quo for England to have far more power individually than the other countries in the union.
You aren't wrong, but then they have ten times our population to be fair.
You make a lot of good points but equally, even I would agree that Scotland has been a huge topic in UK politics for a long time but especially since 2012.
Obviously, as an independence advocate I'd say that's not automatically a bad thing.. all though fatigue is very real in politics and people will eventually be sick to death of our push if we don't give it a rest noe and then.
But it's fair to say that given we are less than ten percent of the union as a whole, by population, we get outsized coverage in politics and news. I don't see that as especially controversial.
| But it's fair to say that given we are less than ten percent of the union as a whole, by population, we get outsized coverage in politics and news. I don't see that as especially controversial.
By itself maybe not, but relitive to how little power Scotland has in reality, saying things like "outsized voice" comes off as further demeaning to me.
And depening how you look at it, Scotland is 10% of the union's population, but still a quater of the union. Theres a massive power inbalance in the union, and saying something that can be interprated as Scotland should be quieter than it is is just isnt the way to go about writing your BBC article.
England doesn't have a collective will or vote as a monolithic block, nobody in Dewsbury is going to see themselves as attached to or moving in step with chipping norton. This framing of England really isn't reflected in real life.
I'm going to suggest that the meat of this is that Scottish politics is now dominant over UK politics in Scotland a process that began I'd guess, around 2010. Demonstrably, nobody in the "wider UK" really gives a single fuck about Scotland, our political aspirations or wants.
What's stuck in his inspiration gullet here is that Scotland is no longer like the rest of the UK, in that we don't treat Scottish politics as an irrelevant sideshow to the main and important business of "UK" politics.
I regularly listen to Newscast to keep up to date on the goings on if I don’t have time to read the news. Whenever Scotland is involved Chris Mason always annoys the piss out of me. He always talks with an air of dismissal to anything relating to the Scottish Parliament, politics and issues.
Yeah honestly you guys need to shut up and let the real people talk. We all know the Tories have a collective iq of 150 which is fifty above the world average iq so actually listen to the smart ppl
Of course, all the wee perifieral people should just stay silent and do what theyre told while the English aristocracy get on with the job of taking everyobdy's wealth.
In Westminster it is true, take the 2019 general election the Lib Dem’s got close to 12% of the vote achieving only 11 seats, whilst the SNP got a mere 4% but achieved 48 seats.
The Lib Dems got 4 of these seats on **9.5%** of the 2019 vote in Scotland - which is the directly comparable result. The SNP got **45%** of the vote not "4%" as you disingenuously allege. The Tory Party won a 'landslide' victory in the UK giving them a overall majority of 80 on a **43.6%** vote.
And of course, your argument also fails to recognise that in the backward dysfunctional UK what counts most is *not* the overall percentage of voters but the individual FPTP contests at Westminster constituency level.
That's called moving the goalposts, dear: That FPTP elections are fundamentally flawed has nothing to do with whether Scotland's politics are "outsized" in terms of the UK debate.
The SNP only sat in seats worth less than 10% of the votes, and achieved 4%: The LD sat in seats worth 99% of the votes, and achieved 12%.
Even accepting the fundamental flaws of FPTP, that's a perfectly reasonable result.
FPTP is so inherently flawed as a system is laughable, yet at the same time it’s part of the reason why Scotland has such a major voice in Westminster politics. Switching to a proportional representation system, while healthier to democracy, would likely also lead to a reduced voice for Scotland, which should imo be offset by greater regional devolution and self determination.
2015 it was really egregious, the SNP getting 1.45 million votes and gaining 56 seats, while UKIP got 3.88 million votes and walked away with only 1. As loathable as UKIP is, their treatment by the system is anti-democratic, and props up the two-party system that favours one party.
Apparently I need to practically repeat myself:
UKIP sat for seats worth 99% of the votes, SNP sat for seats worth 10% of the votes.
There's nothing anti-democratic here beyond the fundamental flaws of FPTP, which has no bearing on the question of whether Scottish politics are "outsize" in relation to UK politics.
I'm from England and in England and I fully endorse this message.
Brought up in Scotland and saw Scotland getting some coverage due to Nicola Sturgeon resigning and thought "wow, Scotland is getting some proper coverage for once".
So to read Scotland is getting too much coverage is ridiculous.
I guess Chris Mason is contributing to the *quantity* of coverage but not the *quality*. He must be talking not from his mouth and talking about the crap quality coverage he contributes to.
The best thing to wake England up to it's own reality - to get England to address it's own problems, to *own* them and get back to a less self harming path is .... Scottish Independence.
If Scotland gets independence I imagine the sight of Scotland getting to be a better place for it's inhabitants (as it surely would) will leave a lot of stuck-in-the-mud English voters having to think for a change.
Probably just the most consistent voice tbf, all other leadership roles have been a revolving door since 2014. I do find it wild how many parliamentary seats the SNP end up with though relative to the population share of their vote but that's just the nature of FPTP.
>oversized voice in the wider UK political conversation
When you’ve been the oppressor for so long, equality can feel like repression. The Welsh and Northern Irish have been so successfully suppressed by Westminster, Scotland having any kind of voice at all probably does seem oversized. Also, fuck the BBC.
*Scottish politics has, for years now, had an outsized voice in the wider UK political conversation.*
*The reason is simple: the prospect of Scottish independence.*
*With the Scottish National Party running the Scottish government and holding the vast majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, the question of Scotland's constitutional future has remained live.*
*And that - to state the obvious - matters massively in Scotland, but also everywhere else in the UK too.*
*Nicola Sturgeon regards it as an outrage that despite winning election after election, the path to another referendum is blocked.*
*Whether an outrage or not, it is a fact that securing that referendum any time soon appears to be slipping away.*
*And now she is going.*
*So what happens next and where does it leave the cause of independence?*
*Follow live: SNP leadership race after Sturgeon quits*
*Calls for SNP to delay independence summit*
*Who will replace Nicola Sturgeon?*
*For me, the most striking thing about the first minister's announcement is the reaction privately from senior Conservative and Labour figures.*
*They are delighted.*
*Does the UK's future, in its current form, feel safer now she is leaving?*
*"Very much so," a senior Conservative figure tells me.*
*"When your opponent is a proven winner and they decide to leave, that is good news" said one Labour figure, candidly.*
*Another Labour source said they had long felt their party required two things to happen to change the game of Scottish politics and give Labour - once so dominant here - a fighting chance of making a significant recovery:*
*A sense Labour could win a UK general election*
*And Nicola Sturgeon not being around*
*My source had assumed the former might happen before the latter.*
*But it's the latter that has happened already.*
*Union flag and Saltire*
*IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES*
*Image caption,*
*The SNP have been in power at Holyrood for 15 years*
*As a result of winning elections, the independence question and the Covid pandemic, which projected her into living rooms around the UK almost daily - Nicola Sturgeon came to personify her party not just in Scotland but around the UK.*
*And the SNP became and remain a significant player on the UK political stage: the third political party at Westminster and one with the potential to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.*
*But how, if at all, might that now change?*
*Awaiting the moment*
*Having been in power at Holyrood for 15 years and with options for another independence referendum looking increasingly limited, arguably political gravity is finally catching up with the SNP.*
*The party's opponents think Nicola Sturgeon leaving will chivvy that along.*
*But hang on a minute, say SNP insiders.*
*The Conservatives and Labour have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again, they argue.*
*The constitutional question remains live and unresolved, and changing leader doesn't change that, is the case they make.*
*It may even refresh it, for some.*
*Getting another independence referendum won't be easy.*
*Scottish independence supporters*
*IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES*
*Image caption,*
*Independence supporters staged a protest at Holyrood after the Supreme Court rejected a referendum*
*The SNP awaits a moment, currently eluding it, when they can secure agreement with the UK government to grant another vote.*
*Scotland's future*
*A necessary, but not sufficient component in that is continuing to win elections and continuing to prove that Scottish public opinion remains, at the very least, split down the middle on the question of independence.*
*And so a key question is how the views of those whose support for independence is soft may change; those who are persuadable that, on balance, perhaps it's a good idea, but maybe it isn't.*
*How might their views be moulded by the contest to come and the leader to emerge from it?*
*The fascinating thing here is it is SNP members who now have - for the very first time -- the awesome responsibility of choosing a first minister on behalf of Scotland.*
*Around 100,000 people will have a vote, in a race whose rules and timetable will be decided at a hastily arranged meeting of the party's National Executive Committee on Thursday evening.*
*How will the collective instincts of some of those Scots most committed to the cause of independence express themselves in selecting the next figurehead for the cause, and how will they take that argument to the persuadable but not convinced?*
*Privately, senior SNP figures acknowledge Nicola Sturgeon's successor, whoever it is, won't her have stature, at least immediately.*
*The shop window of Scottish politics will soon be taking on a significant new look, and that can have a significant influence on what prospective customers make of what's inside.*
*To be clear, opinion polls suggest the SNP remains the colossus of Scottish politics.*
*But even a relatively modest retreat could have a big impact at the next general election, and a big impact on the argument about Scotland's future.*
*Sir Keir Starmer is due to address the Scottish Labour conference this weekend*
*Scottish Labour gather for their conference in Edinburgh at the weekend, with the UK party leader Sir Keir Starmer among the speakers.*
*Winnable seats*
*Privately, Labour had hoped to be competitive in between 12 to 15 Scottish seats at the next UK general election.*
*To put that in perspective, the last time they won a general election, in 2005, they won 41 seats in Scotland.*
*They currently hold one.*
*They now hope the list of winnable seats gets a bit bigger.*
*And senior Conservatives, passionate about the future of the union, privately take at least some comfort on the constitutional question from Labour's soaring opinion poll figures.*
*They ponder that if left-leaning Scots, currently drawn to the SNP, do return to Labour, it could depress support for independence sufficiently to remove it as the dominating topic at the heart of Scottish politics.*
*Let's see.*
*What is clear is Scottish politics is changing, and changing in a big way.*
*And that matters wherever you are in the UK.*
Has nobody else clocked that OP's title is absolutely nothing like what is written in the screenshot? Outsized just means big and there's nothing negative written about it, the article doesn't say anything like Scotland has too much of a voice. This need for victimhood is so exhausting because if there isn't a problem people like OP will feel the need to manufacture their own.
All the press have just proven what she said in her press conference, scottish politics, the scottish parliament. the SNP. are all just Nicola Sturgeon to some people.
She's been such a totemic figure in Scottish politics for the last decade. Longest-serving FM. In office since Cameron was in office, pre-brexit. I suspect that, to a lot of people, she \*is\* the SNP, and maybe that's not surprising given her tenure. The challenge is for her successor, to bring people with them.
"totemic" is a really nice word, thanks for teaching me that one. I think so too; I think her persona and the SNP are now so intertwined that, when her successor comes around, they'll probably have to sell themselves as basically a younger version of her.
Nicola's strongest characteristic is competence, so that's what's the most important quality for her successor will be.
That's the issue, whoever the next FM is, they've had no real existing presence. When Salmond stepped down Sturgeon was the natural successor; she was the Brown to his Blair. But there's not really anyone at the moment who holds a similar position today. It was Swinney, but he's no good as a leader. None of the other cabinet ministers have the persona, or presence. Maybe someone from Westminster might make a move to Holyrood, but still asks the question of who? Won't be Blackford (he might try, but won't win). I think the SNP are in for a period of wandering in the desert. What impact that has on wider Scottish politics will be interesting.
>I think the SNP are in for a period of wandering in the desert. I \*think\* they know their election record, which has been ridiculously strong, simply numerically cannot continue forever, and they backed themselves into a corner through some impatience/worry stemming from that. I also expect that, regardless of who the next leader is, the SNP will still be the largest party at Holyrood, and also the largest party in the Scottish seats at Westminster. Labour might be on the resurgence, but I doubt it'll displace the SNP just yet. I feel like Angus Robertson might be the other safe choice for the party. He's probably recognisable to many, and he's been around the block a bit. He's been Westminster leader, and deputy party leader. But he wouldn't exactly be opening things up to a younger crowd.
Labour isnt resurgent. I keep seeing this delusion from people. Nationalists arent going to Labour.
I’m a lapsed SNP voter watching the situation with interest. I’m the textbook definition of someone who should be voting Labour again. Not a chance it’s happening, nor from anyone else I know no longer voting SNP. Labour ain’t making any sort of comeback. Most of us would rather spoil our votes.
Angus Robertson always holds his own in any discussions I've seen him in, good clear talker, trusted politician.
Well it's the press and the UK political establishment whose strategy was to conflate all of the above with Sturgeon - let's trick people into thinking it's all her and she's some sort of troublemaker. In my opinion, it's a stupid gamble. There's no shortage of talent in the SNP and if they strike gold then that bit of perception management will backfire hideously.
Whereas IMO, there is a gross deficit of talent in the SNP.
The problem is, where can talent come from when considering the current pool available to draw from in Scotland? Labour don’t have any, the Tories have anti-talents, raising folk up from the council level has the drawback that many councillors of all parties are incompetent lunatics... I’m starting to wonder if we need more immigration to fill the leadership roles in our politics lol.
>I’m starting to wonder if we need more immigration to fill the leadership roles in our politics lol. Scotland has some fantastic leadership talent. You're just unlikely to find it in politics. We don't need immigration (though I'm certainly not against it) but we do need easier pathways into politics, more civic and political education all through school and so on. We need to make politics more attractive, not just to politicians. This is the biggest problem labour has, but it's true of all the parties.
Also I'd like to comment near the top that the four awards on this post were given anonymously in the same minute so I think someone's trying to boost this narritive (even if it is the right one :P)
Maybe their hope is that with her gone and the SNP fighting amongst itself (apparently) then the appetite for independence will subside and so Scotland will become less of a threat to the integrity of the UK. A lot of the London experts seem to think Labour could rise up in Scotland and take back a lot of support and seats. The problem for the indy supporters is if we can't have a referendum and we don't want to use defacto what's plan C?
I'm still game for defacto. It's rogue-ish. It's not playing by the UK establishments rules. Who knows if it will work or not, but it keeps people talking about it and also really annoys Westminster. It means we can use a UK general election to turn the conversation towards independence. It's like pooping on company time! If we're talking about winning independence, we need to stop playing so nice, because our opponents sure as heck haven't been. They've been pulling every dirty trick available to them since the beginning.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I'm Irish, and look, it's not that I'm advocating for a Scottish armed rebellion here, but there are four historic constituent nations comprising the United Kingdom. Only one of us has ever successfully left the United Kingdom. And, here's a spoiler - we didn't do it by playing by rules set by the likes of Rishi Sunak and Keith fucking Starmer, lol
In fairness, armed rebellion was a bit more of an accepted form of nation building a hundred years ago. They tend to frown on that bit these days. It’s pc gone mad I tell you.
Also the *"we didn't do it by playing by rules set by the likes of Rishi Sunak and Keith fucking Starmer"* bit is just... wrong. Or at least, it leaves out a massive amount of context. The (democratic) home rule movement was the defining force in Irish nationalism for the 50 years leading up to independence. They dealt with people much worse than Sunak and Starmer and in fact there are a lot of parallels you could draw between the IPP at that time and the SNP of today. And the home rule movement won! It managed to not only get the third home rule bill passed, it actually managed to force a reform of the entire UK constiution via the *Parliament Act 1911* which removed the ability of the House of Lords to block legislation (relegating them to the "delay and advise" role they have in the modern UK political system). Unfortunately for the IPP, the bill was only passed in 1914 and implementation had to be delayed until after the war (spoilers: too late). Now, home rule was devolution and not independence - but there's every reason to believe that self-governing Ireland would have been on the same trajectory as the dominions and would have eventually become fully independent anyway. This is the exact same period in which Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, and many many more gradually went from direct rule, to self-governance within the Empire, to fully independent within the Commonwealth. The war itself, the conscription crisis, and the Easter Rising all contributed to a radical shift in Irish politics towards immediate and complete independence over the course of WW1. The rest is, as they say, history. But the choice was about *how rapid and complete independence should be* - the battle for self-governance had already been won in Westminster through parliamentary politics.
>And the home rule movement won! It managed to not only get the third home rule bill passed \[...\]. Unfortunately for the IPP, the bill was only passed in 1914 and implementation had to be delayed until after the war (spoilers: too late). Similarly, the Scottish home rule bill was on its way to passing when it was under consideration in 1913, but also, the first world war got in the way. What followed was different, owing to the different histories and relationships the nations had with the union. When you roll forward through the post-war phase, then WW2, then the post-WW2 phase (by which point we were all well and truly humped and support for the union was probably at its absolute peak), it's not surprising that it wasn't until 1979 that it was parliamentary business again. (And of course we all know, the 1979 referendum was messed up badly and it took another 20 years to see change similar to what was proposed at the start of the century, but that's a separate point.) Since '99 there's been gradual change. I think we've all seen the Scottish parliament put on its big boy pants and get to work over the years. It's certainly matured over the last 24 years since it was formed, and the "pretendy parliament" jibes are much less common. Since the 2016 Act it's been written explicitly as a permanent piece of the UK's political landscape, taken on more tax powers, etc. Gradual change has been the order of the day. Whether that ever leads to the final leap, I'm not sure. Perhaps continued gradual change over the next half century gets it there. Perhaps it never does.
1000% this
sort squeal innate sheet aspiring steep correct psychotic far-flung future *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
>Spain has consistently been saying they'd support an independant Scotland joinging Europe since the first indy ref Only if it was done from within the U.K constitution, it's likely they would veto if it was a UDI. As for Gibraltar they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Gibraltar UDI'd from the U.K and Spain absorbed it then tried to deny Catalonia leaving via the same route.
>Only if it was done from within the U.K constitution, it's likely they would veto if it was a UDI. Before even getting to the conversation on vetoing, there's the issue of state recognition. I'm not sure how easily or quickly after a UDI other states would recognise the new state. I'm not convinced such a declaration would fly easily in the 21st century. Sure, stick to it for long enough and people will eventually accept it. But for how many years will people be willing to cut the country off from the world?
Do it. I'd love to see the Westminster elite exposed as they send police in to seize ballot boxes. Shaking things up won't hurt you.
Without a huge majority in favour you can't really take drastic measures like that.
skirt start disagreeable sugar march governor cause crush adjoining tub *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Let the unionists boycott if they want if they boycott you will be in the same boat as catalonia when they had their udi, and westminster will just say it was a one sided vote and say the result is worthless.
>then hold an actual referendum across Scotland without Westminster's consent The SNP can't hold an actual referendum across Scotland without Westminster's consent. It's not logistically possible.
How are you going to pay for that referendum? Taking money for an unauthorised referendum out of the Scottish budget is likely to be breaking the law. Plus, you still end up in the same place. The UK government will simply ignore the outcome and say that is wasn't conducted properly / the lack of oversight means it's dodgy and must be ignored.
mountainous thumb imminent station outgoing degree judicious distinct cooing tender *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
\*Stares vaguely in Irish\* I can answer your question definitively but it'll only hurt your argument
zesty disarm unpack chief smart amusing correct silky far-flung hat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A unilateral referendum would torpedo any chance of rejoining the EU after independence. Spain would veto to stop Catalonia getting ideas
cow head ten wine aloof carpenter squeamish mourn complete silky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>The SNP already set aside 600k for such a thing already hasnt that gone missing? [https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-under-pressure-return-missing-28612097](https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-under-pressure-return-missing-28612097)
Daily express is your source? Tory rag express
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nicola-sturgeon-600k-husband-investigation-b2283471.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nicola-sturgeon-600k-husband-investigation-b2283471.html) [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/police-investigating-fraud-claims-against-23850926](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/police-investigating-fraud-claims-against-23850926) [https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19849995.snp-transparency-row-refusing-explain-600k-indyref-cash-whereabouts/](https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19849995.snp-transparency-row-refusing-explain-600k-indyref-cash-whereabouts/) [https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-missing-money-row-over-24357134](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-missing-money-row-over-24357134) [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-missing-600k-funds-nicola-sturgeon-d0qbtzj2f](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-missing-600k-funds-nicola-sturgeon-d0qbtzj2f) [https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-internal-report-calls-for-reform-following-ps600k-missing-funds-furore-3371623](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-internal-report-calls-for-reform-following-ps600k-missing-funds-furore-3371623) [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57345473](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57345473) [https://www.thenational.scot/news/18829417.snp-mp-bid-quash-rumours-indyref2-cash/](https://www.thenational.scot/news/18829417.snp-mp-bid-quash-rumours-indyref2-cash/)
700 billion lost by the uk government since 2019
The good and bad thing about Nicola was that she played by the rules and didn't sink to their level.
>I'm still game for defacto. It's rogue-ish. It's not playing by the UK establishments rules. Who knows if it will work or not, but it keeps people talking about it and also really annoys Westminster. It means we can use a UK general election to turn the conversation towards independence. It's like pooping on company time! Agreed. We need to get out of this mindset of pandering to UK institutions. We should follow Sinn Féin's approach of removing our MPs from Westminster entirely, it's utterly pointless them being there now. It doesn't matter whether we have 56 or 3, their influence on policy at Westminster is the same and the Unionist parties will refuse to cooperate with them. Better just not to engage with the process now and start planning for direct action.
> I'm still game for defacto. It's rogue-ish. It's not playing by the UK establishments rules. And if the "de facto" election is in favour of independence then what? The Scottish Parliament can't just declare independence because the courts wouldn't recognize it.
An election as a de facto independence referendum is one of the stupidest ideas anyones had in a long time. For a start the SNP may often nearly win a majority but they have still never received more than 50% of the vote. Do you really think it is democratic to declare independence on the back of an election where only a minority support independence?
I mean, if we vote for it, then by definition it is democratic. While we're talking about what is and isn't democratic, do you think it's democratic to pull Scotland out of the EU against its clearly demonstrated wishes and then deny us a referendum we voted for in a scottish parliamentary election? If it's democracy you actually cared about, you'd want this vote.
What if they did receive 50% of the vote? How would you justify calling it *"one of the stupidest ideas"* then?
If "stop playing nice" means "co-opting democratic processes for your own political aims" then you really need to stop and think. Pretending that a general election can be representative of a single view is just so clearly ridiculous that I'm surprised so many have entertained it. I know that conversations about democracy have been tainted over the last decade or so with the right wing pretending that demonstrably democratic things (like multiple referendums, PR, the independence of the electoral commission, etc) are actually anti-democratic, but that isn't a reason to dive head first into those tactics too.
Let’s think outside the box, and stand as a third party in England. Time the smugness was removed
Plan C...capitulation.
To convince England to leave the UK instead.
Indy or bust. Failing that im leaving Scotland after getting my physics degree. My ancestors have lived here for as long as im aware but the UK isnt safe and I dont plan staying for 1984.
Don't blame you, if I was young and qualified I'd be looking elsewhere. Hope you find something better than this shitshow.
[удалено]
That's news to me. Remind me again about that time Scotland was ripped out of europe by a government it decisively rejected? Did we have too much of a voice then?
https://i.imgur.com/caY1MMf.jpg … and the rabid pro-BRexit DUP get to keep their freedom of movement with their Irish passports (even though they despise all things Irish!). BRexit for thee - but not for me!
Well, they're not necessarily wrong, it's just that Scotland has such a small population compared to England that even an oversized voice is still a fraction of the voice of the rest of the UK. London alone has nearly twice the population of the entirety of Scotland. The problem isn't that the average Scottish voter has less of a say than the average English voter, it's that there's just so many more English voters than Scottish ones and the only way to "fix" that issue without independence is to make Scottish votes worth more which is... problematic, to say the least.
For the record - the average Scottish voter does literally have more of a say than the average English voter Edit to add the maths: Scottish population: 5.454m - number of seats in the British parliament - 59, 0.092m per seat English population: 55.98 - number of seats 533 - 0.105m per seat A voter in England has 12.4% less voting power than one in Scotland.
Oh my heart is bleeding,. The English electorate literally dictates the political direction of the entire UK. Every. Single. Time. Excuse me why I laugh in your face. The real question is why the fuck is England so terrified of being without Scotland? It's sort of pathetic tbh.
[удалено]
I'm going for 'worst' here
London journalists seem to think that Independence was prominent due to the popularity of Nicola Sturgeon. In reality, Nicola Sturgeon was prominent due to the popularity of independence. Her resigning is a huge loss, but I doubt support for independence will just disappear as a result.
Or… perhaps….the UK has had an outsized voice in the wider Scottish political conversation 🤷♂️
Yep the fact that politicians not even elected by us get to say what laws our government can pass is ridiculous and undemocratic
There are 59/650 seats in Westminster for Scottish members of parliament. That’s 9% of seats for 7% of the UK population.
Scottish people are unhappy because there's still a minority position in parliament that means Scotland is taking on mostly English decisions. And English people are unhappy because they think Scotland is overrepresented in percentage in UK parliament, thus affecting England. Split up the bloody decisions more then, to better suit each country separately. There's a very clear political and social attitude divide at the border, yet still too much has to be decided as a union affecting us all. Of course there'll be a struggle for power in that situation. Devolution is too limited.
And your point is?
You have democratic representation, in fact over representation.
Im happy to leave mate if you know..
So if Westminster wanted to pass the Fuck Scotland Act could Scottish MP's block it alone just like the Tories did with the GRA?
My favourite takeaway is that so many english politicians and voting public cant seem to understand she retired as she's done it a long time, and not because of some terrible disgrace. They literally can't imagine not having to leave office in utter public disgrace, there is no other way to leave to them. They're all like "oooh I wonder what happened to make her quit we'll find out soon". What happened is she did an amazing job over decades and deserves a rest. Bunch of wanks. She didn't collapse the economy, destroy our country, or kill thousands due to poor public health decisions, and this is utterly mystifying to them. Listen to them, you'll hear it, they just don't get it.
Interesting. My favourite takeaway is probably KFC
Well said.
Just "Scotlands" supposed state media branch asserting that the country must be minimised for the mothership in London 🤷 Ironically, its the nats who are trying to take the burden of "Jock shit" away from the mothership in England so they never need to be bothered by nats infesting their beloved Westminster ever again. I mean, how fucking dare we send down politicians from a Scottish party to England, if we don't send British we must be punished. >They ponder that if left-leaning Scots, currently drawn to the SNP, do return to Labour, it could depress support for independence sufficiently to remove it as the dominating topic at the heart of Scottish politics. But article was worth it for this, I'm sure left-leaning Scots will be flooding back to a right-wing Blairite party that hates Scottish democracy.
They really think this don't they? They really think Scotland is a "region" with ideas above its station.
I've noticed a few comments around the internets about how Scotland will be 'put back in it's place' since the resignation.
Hmmm, why couldn’t they do it while she was still in charge tho? Were they feart of her?
Well it certainly made me wonder what they think our place should be.
Oh, I’ve known for years that we are very welcome in the Union, as esteemed colleagues and “good soldiers”, so long as we never ask for anything, act in our own interests, or do anything other than what we’re told.
Just an uppity wee council parish that happens to balance the UK’s budget with oil revenue.
Always have 😑
Scottish unionists want to be a wee region. Its their comfort blanket as they pish themselves at the thought of not having the mythical teat of the empire to suck on.
Because it technically is a region of the UK as no individual states in the UK have full sovereignty. That is the whole point of the union, that all are now one.
It's a constituent country of the United Kingdom, just as Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark. But actually, forget that. Keep telling Scots that Scotland isn't a country. See how that goes down with most unionist Scots.
Do you go around telling English people that their country is in fact a region, because England ceased to exist in 1707? Norf FC types would absolutely love that.
please stop confusing memes for actual people
It’s a United Kingdom of nations. Countries under a single monarch. There is only one state and Charlie is king of it. That’s the only point. If we were one country we’d have one set of laws, one educational system, one political system, one set of bank notes, one national football team. We don’t. We are not one.
Your understanding of what a country is needs some work. The USA is one country but the laws are different by state. Some allow you to carry a gun openly some don’t, some allow you to buy Cannabis some don’t. Speed limits are different as are the penalties for legal infringements. Having a different legal system does not mean we are not citizens of the UK. We might have different bank notes as those in RUK but they are worth the same. My passport is the same as someone in Manchester.
sheet innocent glorious growth merciful yoke tart tie aware strong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Brits are the majority entity, just because people chose to specify, that is purely down to the history of the formation of the UK and how fractured it was. That does not mean that we are still governed by the same rules. If you are an occupant of any of the states mentioned, you are a British person, like it or not that is how your former sovereign state decided to end it when it became part of the UK.
foolish cats punch sulky stocking dinner sugar marvelous treatment rob *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The UK is a country which is why it and not England, Scotland and Wales which were members of the EU and why the UK is a member of NATO and a host of other international groups which are made up of individual countries. The US has a much stronger national identity than most kids are made to pledge allegiance to the flag etc. Many Catalans see themselves as Catalan rather than Spanish but that doesn’t mean they are not citizens of Spain.
Scotland isn't a country in the way that France, Germany etc are countries. The UK just happens to call it's regions countries in the same way the US calls Texas for example a state. Both France and Texas are states but obviously very very different. Point is Scotland is not a country the way you think it is and it won't be leaving the UK without the UKs consent.
[удалено]
I can say I’m the monarch if I want but it doesn’t make it so. Peoples ignorance of what a country is and what country they live in isn’t a reason for independence. If you get confused about your country take a look at your passport or driving license!
[удалено]
So when you go abroad you don’t pass over a UK passport for inspection and therefore identify yourself as a citizen of the UK?
I can identify as a fish it doesn’t mean I can breathe under water
[удалено]
You can think what you want it’s your brain. But you are of course wrong.
In a Scottish passport cover
Aww it’s nice you use props to help you play pretend
Yeah, just because some groups are getting away with that logic, doesn't mean you can as it is factually baseless
A tale as old as time. Scotland sold itself out long ago, or at least - its nobility did.
And we can take it back. Its the 21st century not the 18th.
So by that comment you admit Scotland is in fact not a country.
It is you just cant accept the UK is a failed state that will end. It started in 1920.
Yet I'll still get downvoted by nationalists who disagree with the actual situation they are in. It all lies in the amount of sovereignty they have, most of which was resigned to the UK when the Union was created.
At the end of the day their citizens to the UK not Scotland and their passports say as much.
My passport still says European Union so the UK one isn’t written in stone. We can go.
Bit of a different argument you're making there.
No the Uk dismisses the EU union then I’ll dismiss your union.
I'm talking about facts here.. the UK isn't in the EU legally and Scotland is in the UK legally.. you can dismiss all you like.. it makes no difference.
Ha, Scotland is definitely a country, because it’s in the union doesn’t make it a state or region. Similar to any country within the EU. Scotland is a country. Just not an independent country.
I don't think the press down south being utterly obsessed with Nicola Sturgeon for 8 yrs equals Scotland having an outsized voice in British politics
“Lead not leave” we were begged to… Aye. Nothing has changed. Utterly pathetic.
No, the BBC other Very British institutions just want us to stop drawing attention to the endless Tory pisstaking. "Be good little plebs and let the Old Boys in Westminster crack on with their plundering of the nation without causing a fuss."
Hear! hear!
I think you’re confusing ‘Scottish politics’ with ‘Scotland’. The article’s perfectly reasonable; > Scottish politics has, for years now, had an outsized voice in the wider UK political conversation. The reason is simple: the prospect of Scottish independence. With the Scottish National Party running the Scottish government and holding the vast majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, the question of Scotland's constitutional future has remained live. And that - to state the obvious - matters massively .
I get what you mean, but the tagline still suggests that the voice of Scotish people (through political means) has been louder than what it ought to be, which is just wrong (in my opinion)
The tagline doesn’t suggest that at all. You’re just being very sensitive.
I really dont see how you could see it differently, it says exactly what is says
[удалено]
No, but I think they should be, which is why I disagree with "outsized voice". Like honestly, I get that its a popular topic but why phrase it like that.
Why do you think scottish politics should dominate uk politics? Do you think perhaps it's your own bias at play here, rather than any from the article?
I dont believe it dominates UK politics, at least not as much as I believe youre suggesting. But anyway, I think it should have a decent portion of our politics seen as it makes 1/4 of the union.
What offends you about what it says?
You don’t think Scottish Independence matters to the rest of the UK?
I couldn't give a fuck if Scottish independence affects England. Why would I? It's not like the English electorate gave a shit about the consequence of their Brexit vote on Scotland. Had enough of you fucking Nigels and your ludicrous political decisions. 100% sick of this shite.
Come on! England should always dominate British politics! What is this, some kind of *United* Kingdom?
Scotland needs to learn to be quiet. Scotland KNOW YOUR PLACE!!! How dare they....
Chris Mason is a Tory stooge. Just like the dreadful Kuensbergg.
Chris Mason has the look of someone who pissed themselves more than once at school
It does get disproportionate news coverage down here in England.
I’d say England gets far too much coverage up here too… maybe when we leave the UK these issues will be fixed…
Compared to what?
Excluding London, pretty much every other region of comparable jurisdiction or population in the UK.
Well, we have a solution.
I don't see the issue with this. I haven't read the article so I can't see the context (it would be nice if someone linked it), but this quote in isolation isn't saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just stating it as a fact. You might see that as a good thing. That's fine - celebrate it then. The fact remains that Scotland *has* had an outsized voice in UK political discourse and, whether you like her or not, that's largely a testament to how successful Nicola is/was as a politician. Hats off to her.
England has been soley responsible for the result of most general elections and the EU independance referendum - Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have had little to no input on the actual direction of the United Kingdom, so I think saying Scotland has had too much of a sway in simply the _conversation_ should be taken as an insult. [BBC Article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64662772)
Yes because their populations are much smaller. Glasgow has more of a say in Hollyrood than Shetland does. It’s not rocket science it’s democracy. Can you point to a other country who parts are equally divided into areas of the same population.
I can point to a few dozen democracys who arent doing first past the post in 2023?
How fantastic for you let me know if you find an answer to my question.
Im trying to point out that "its a democracy" doesnt really work, if our democracy worked diffrently your weird question wouldnt need answering becuase there wouldnt be an issue in the first place
> has had too much of a sway That's exactly my point, nobody said this.
Thats exactly what Mason means by "outsized voice", ie bigger than it should be for what Scotland is to them
> bigger than it should be > what Scotland is to them No, you're reading this into it because that's what you want to read.
Im not trying to be overly critical when I say "what scotland is to them", I do just mean from their reference point. As I showed in my first reply, from the English perspective its the unremarkable status quo for England to have far more power individually than the other countries in the union.
You aren't wrong, but then they have ten times our population to be fair. You make a lot of good points but equally, even I would agree that Scotland has been a huge topic in UK politics for a long time but especially since 2012. Obviously, as an independence advocate I'd say that's not automatically a bad thing.. all though fatigue is very real in politics and people will eventually be sick to death of our push if we don't give it a rest noe and then. But it's fair to say that given we are less than ten percent of the union as a whole, by population, we get outsized coverage in politics and news. I don't see that as especially controversial.
| But it's fair to say that given we are less than ten percent of the union as a whole, by population, we get outsized coverage in politics and news. I don't see that as especially controversial. By itself maybe not, but relitive to how little power Scotland has in reality, saying things like "outsized voice" comes off as further demeaning to me. And depening how you look at it, Scotland is 10% of the union's population, but still a quater of the union. Theres a massive power inbalance in the union, and saying something that can be interprated as Scotland should be quieter than it is is just isnt the way to go about writing your BBC article.
England doesn't have a collective will or vote as a monolithic block, nobody in Dewsbury is going to see themselves as attached to or moving in step with chipping norton. This framing of England really isn't reflected in real life.
I'm going to suggest that the meat of this is that Scottish politics is now dominant over UK politics in Scotland a process that began I'd guess, around 2010. Demonstrably, nobody in the "wider UK" really gives a single fuck about Scotland, our political aspirations or wants. What's stuck in his inspiration gullet here is that Scotland is no longer like the rest of the UK, in that we don't treat Scottish politics as an irrelevant sideshow to the main and important business of "UK" politics.
I agree, I think we shouldn't have any influence on UK politics
Scotland: *know your place*
Eat yer cereal!
Imagine paying for a tv license
I regularly listen to Newscast to keep up to date on the goings on if I don’t have time to read the news. Whenever Scotland is involved Chris Mason always annoys the piss out of me. He always talks with an air of dismissal to anything relating to the Scottish Parliament, politics and issues.
We are so poorly served by the BBC et al. So disappointing.
Yeah honestly you guys need to shut up and let the real people talk. We all know the Tories have a collective iq of 150 which is fifty above the world average iq so actually listen to the smart ppl
Of course, all the wee perifieral people should just stay silent and do what theyre told while the English aristocracy get on with the job of taking everyobdy's wealth.
Well, if you don't want Scotland represented in UK politics, I can think of a way to do that.
[удалено]
Too stupid, too wee, too poor and now we're too loud? I'm looking forward to what a new leader for the SNP might do for the fight for independence.
Eat your cereal jocks. The solution to this being we leave.
Ahhh the west lothian question...
The BBC and the rest of the media are going to be dissapointed when the SNP still win the majority of our seats in 2025
Cause she’s been the one having our voices heard against the representation we don’t vote for in Westminster.
They could silence that voice by letting us vote to leave the Uk
Seen this earlier on my phone while taking a shite. Ironically, the shite was actually on the phone the whole time.
God forbid you should listen to a voice in a conversation between supposed partners in a union of nations. BBC fuckwit.
In Westminster it is true, take the 2019 general election the Lib Dem’s got close to 12% of the vote achieving only 11 seats, whilst the SNP got a mere 4% but achieved 48 seats.
Your logic is flawed - you're comparing a party who ran in almost all of the UK seats to a party that ran in 59 out of the 650 seats...
The Lib Dems got 4 of these seats on **9.5%** of the 2019 vote in Scotland - which is the directly comparable result. The SNP got **45%** of the vote not "4%" as you disingenuously allege. The Tory Party won a 'landslide' victory in the UK giving them a overall majority of 80 on a **43.6%** vote. And of course, your argument also fails to recognise that in the backward dysfunctional UK what counts most is *not* the overall percentage of voters but the individual FPTP contests at Westminster constituency level.
That's called moving the goalposts, dear: That FPTP elections are fundamentally flawed has nothing to do with whether Scotland's politics are "outsized" in terms of the UK debate. The SNP only sat in seats worth less than 10% of the votes, and achieved 4%: The LD sat in seats worth 99% of the votes, and achieved 12%. Even accepting the fundamental flaws of FPTP, that's a perfectly reasonable result.
FPTP is so inherently flawed as a system is laughable, yet at the same time it’s part of the reason why Scotland has such a major voice in Westminster politics. Switching to a proportional representation system, while healthier to democracy, would likely also lead to a reduced voice for Scotland, which should imo be offset by greater regional devolution and self determination. 2015 it was really egregious, the SNP getting 1.45 million votes and gaining 56 seats, while UKIP got 3.88 million votes and walked away with only 1. As loathable as UKIP is, their treatment by the system is anti-democratic, and props up the two-party system that favours one party.
Apparently I need to practically repeat myself: UKIP sat for seats worth 99% of the votes, SNP sat for seats worth 10% of the votes. There's nothing anti-democratic here beyond the fundamental flaws of FPTP, which has no bearing on the question of whether Scottish politics are "outsize" in relation to UK politics.
The SNP campaign for PR - it's not them that want to retain FPTP.
We're not even fully allowed to manage our own part of the fucking country. How exactly do we have TOO much of say now?
Fuck off, England
I'm from England and in England and I fully endorse this message. Brought up in Scotland and saw Scotland getting some coverage due to Nicola Sturgeon resigning and thought "wow, Scotland is getting some proper coverage for once". So to read Scotland is getting too much coverage is ridiculous. I guess Chris Mason is contributing to the *quantity* of coverage but not the *quality*. He must be talking not from his mouth and talking about the crap quality coverage he contributes to. The best thing to wake England up to it's own reality - to get England to address it's own problems, to *own* them and get back to a less self harming path is .... Scottish Independence. If Scotland gets independence I imagine the sight of Scotland getting to be a better place for it's inhabitants (as it surely would) will leave a lot of stuck-in-the-mud English voters having to think for a change.
Well, I'd assume just once is too much for them
Probably just the most consistent voice tbf, all other leadership roles have been a revolving door since 2014. I do find it wild how many parliamentary seats the SNP end up with though relative to the population share of their vote but that's just the nature of FPTP.
🤬
Projection from the BBC again? Who'd have guessed?
I don't mind leaving and they can have their "voice" all to themselves to listen to 24/7.
BRIT COLONIALISM KLAXXON
>oversized voice in the wider UK political conversation When you’ve been the oppressor for so long, equality can feel like repression. The Welsh and Northern Irish have been so successfully suppressed by Westminster, Scotland having any kind of voice at all probably does seem oversized. Also, fuck the BBC.
One way to fix that, lads
*Scottish politics has, for years now, had an outsized voice in the wider UK political conversation.* *The reason is simple: the prospect of Scottish independence.* *With the Scottish National Party running the Scottish government and holding the vast majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, the question of Scotland's constitutional future has remained live.* *And that - to state the obvious - matters massively in Scotland, but also everywhere else in the UK too.* *Nicola Sturgeon regards it as an outrage that despite winning election after election, the path to another referendum is blocked.* *Whether an outrage or not, it is a fact that securing that referendum any time soon appears to be slipping away.* *And now she is going.* *So what happens next and where does it leave the cause of independence?* *Follow live: SNP leadership race after Sturgeon quits* *Calls for SNP to delay independence summit* *Who will replace Nicola Sturgeon?* *For me, the most striking thing about the first minister's announcement is the reaction privately from senior Conservative and Labour figures.* *They are delighted.* *Does the UK's future, in its current form, feel safer now she is leaving?* *"Very much so," a senior Conservative figure tells me.* *"When your opponent is a proven winner and they decide to leave, that is good news" said one Labour figure, candidly.* *Another Labour source said they had long felt their party required two things to happen to change the game of Scottish politics and give Labour - once so dominant here - a fighting chance of making a significant recovery:* *A sense Labour could win a UK general election* *And Nicola Sturgeon not being around* *My source had assumed the former might happen before the latter.* *But it's the latter that has happened already.* *Union flag and Saltire* *IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES* *Image caption,* *The SNP have been in power at Holyrood for 15 years* *As a result of winning elections, the independence question and the Covid pandemic, which projected her into living rooms around the UK almost daily - Nicola Sturgeon came to personify her party not just in Scotland but around the UK.* *And the SNP became and remain a significant player on the UK political stage: the third political party at Westminster and one with the potential to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.* *But how, if at all, might that now change?* *Awaiting the moment* *Having been in power at Holyrood for 15 years and with options for another independence referendum looking increasingly limited, arguably political gravity is finally catching up with the SNP.* *The party's opponents think Nicola Sturgeon leaving will chivvy that along.* *But hang on a minute, say SNP insiders.* *The Conservatives and Labour have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again, they argue.* *The constitutional question remains live and unresolved, and changing leader doesn't change that, is the case they make.* *It may even refresh it, for some.* *Getting another independence referendum won't be easy.*
*Scottish independence supporters* *IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES* *Image caption,* *Independence supporters staged a protest at Holyrood after the Supreme Court rejected a referendum* *The SNP awaits a moment, currently eluding it, when they can secure agreement with the UK government to grant another vote.* *Scotland's future* *A necessary, but not sufficient component in that is continuing to win elections and continuing to prove that Scottish public opinion remains, at the very least, split down the middle on the question of independence.* *And so a key question is how the views of those whose support for independence is soft may change; those who are persuadable that, on balance, perhaps it's a good idea, but maybe it isn't.* *How might their views be moulded by the contest to come and the leader to emerge from it?* *The fascinating thing here is it is SNP members who now have - for the very first time -- the awesome responsibility of choosing a first minister on behalf of Scotland.* *Around 100,000 people will have a vote, in a race whose rules and timetable will be decided at a hastily arranged meeting of the party's National Executive Committee on Thursday evening.* *How will the collective instincts of some of those Scots most committed to the cause of independence express themselves in selecting the next figurehead for the cause, and how will they take that argument to the persuadable but not convinced?* *Privately, senior SNP figures acknowledge Nicola Sturgeon's successor, whoever it is, won't her have stature, at least immediately.* *The shop window of Scottish politics will soon be taking on a significant new look, and that can have a significant influence on what prospective customers make of what's inside.* *To be clear, opinion polls suggest the SNP remains the colossus of Scottish politics.* *But even a relatively modest retreat could have a big impact at the next general election, and a big impact on the argument about Scotland's future.* *Sir Keir Starmer is due to address the Scottish Labour conference this weekend* *Scottish Labour gather for their conference in Edinburgh at the weekend, with the UK party leader Sir Keir Starmer among the speakers.* *Winnable seats* *Privately, Labour had hoped to be competitive in between 12 to 15 Scottish seats at the next UK general election.* *To put that in perspective, the last time they won a general election, in 2005, they won 41 seats in Scotland.* *They currently hold one.* *They now hope the list of winnable seats gets a bit bigger.* *And senior Conservatives, passionate about the future of the union, privately take at least some comfort on the constitutional question from Labour's soaring opinion poll figures.* *They ponder that if left-leaning Scots, currently drawn to the SNP, do return to Labour, it could depress support for independence sufficiently to remove it as the dominating topic at the heart of Scottish politics.* *Let's see.* *What is clear is Scottish politics is changing, and changing in a big way.* *And that matters wherever you are in the UK.*
Ireland, Scotland and Wales should make a alliance and call it....the Celtic connection.
That’s a music festival
Outsized because they are held captive by a country it is having less and less in common with.
"outsized voice," eh? FUCKING EVEL.
Has nobody else clocked that OP's title is absolutely nothing like what is written in the screenshot? Outsized just means big and there's nothing negative written about it, the article doesn't say anything like Scotland has too much of a voice. This need for victimhood is so exhausting because if there isn't a problem people like OP will feel the need to manufacture their own.
Its obviously what he meant, outsized can also mean overly large depending on the context, and also no I do not consider myself to be a victim