Scotland post-Brexit - what happens next?

[takno]

The Scottish Parliament Elections are this year (2021): I expect the Scottish government to then be pushing for a referendum. The devolution legislation set up a process for an 'official' referendum, binding on London (and Edinburgh) government; but requiring authorisation by the UK government - which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Either way, I expect a referendum next year 2022 (or at least date fixed in '22, for '23) - either an 'official' one for independence; or an 'unofficial' one, indicative for a real indyref - and if that was passed, over to you, Boris, what are you going to do now? Use the Army to keep Scotland in the Union? Otherwise known as a mega crisis...

I can't see it happening tbh. I reckon the SNP will win the election and then shove their request in straight away. Boris will turn it down and they won't dare to hold their own (it would be seen as being about as legitimate as Souter's silly poll was 20 years ago). Labour will then win the next general, and politely decline to hold one on the basis that it's been too long since the Scottish election. By the time we come to the Scottish election after next the SNP will be a busted force. By then there will also likely be a popular campaign for the for the whole UK to join the EEA, blunting a lot of the support for independence

 

[JamesT]

I wonder if after the fuss that was made over a simple majority being sufficient for Brexit, there might be some calls for a minimum threshold for the next IndyRef.

 

[Chester1]

I can't see it happening tbh. I reckon the SNP will win the election and then shove their request in straight away. Boris will turn it down and they won't dare to hold their own (it would be seen as being about as legitimate as Souter's silly poll was 20 years ago). Labour will then win the next general, and politely decline to hold one on the basis that it's been too long since the Scottish election. By the time we come to the Scottish election after next the SNP will be a busted force. By then there will also likely be a popular campaign for the for the whole UK to join the EEA, blunting a lot of the support for independence

I think that might be an option if the nationalist parties only get a majority of seats in the Parliament but not a majority of votes cast. If their collective vote share was say 47% then the Government could argue that support had grown slightly since 2014 but that 53% voted for unionist parties, so come back with 50%+ or the answers no. If its the 58% in opinion polls then its game over, if Boris won't hold a referendum and get it over with then the Tories will pick a new PM who will. They would probably get rid of Boris during a referendum as a gesture to Scots. Either way Boris won't stay as PM if (or when) SNP get a landslide. The Tories would like Scotland to stay but certainly not at any cost. Their electoral future is to be the "English National Party". I.e. a party with a wide range of economic views united by a collective view on national identity.

 

[Butts]

I think we should be careful what we wish for up here !!

If you are a die hard Nationalist the economic consequences of Independence should be largely irrelevant, but a lot seem to want to have their cake and eat it.

Are the SNP going to disappear if Independence is achieved ? They will no longer be able to blame The English/ Westminster for everything and perhaps their record will come under closer scrutiny.

People in the rest of the UK have no idea what it's like to live in "A one Party State" - be thankful.

 

[mcmad]

Indeed, the point I was trying to make to Clansman a page or so back is that much of the rhetoric from the yes side, both on here and wider, is "everything is greener, the details will all get agreed because everyone will want to keep Scotland happy" in exactly the same way as the leave campaign did. From we can choose what type of EU membership we will want because we're not some improvised communist Eastern European state (really, have you looked out the door recently?) to the deal with rUK will be easy as both sides want the same thing.

 

[Clansman]

The devolution legislation set up a process for an 'official' referendum, binding on London (and Edinburgh) government; but requiring authorisation by the UK government - which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Either way, I expect a referendum next year 2022 (or at least date fixed in '22, for '23) - either an 'official' one for independence; or an 'unofficial' one, indicative for a real indyref - and if that was passed, over to you, Boris, what are you going to do now? Use the Army to keep Scotland in the Union? Otherwise known as a mega crisis...

The devolution process does not have any set precedent or rulebook for referenda, so there's no such thing as an 'official' referendum. But legitimacy is the key word, and it is also worth noting that no referendum is legally binding. The only thing that makes it binding is the commitment from both sides to abide by the result unless proven otherwise by any laws, statutes, or subsequent court action.

Just to avoid confusion for anyone who isn't aware, but devolved powers are powers which fall under the Scottish Government's responsibility that are otherwise not highlighted as reserved to the UK Government. In other words, if it's not listed as reserved, it's devolved. Referenda in this regard is a grey area, as the Scottish Government has devolved responsibility over the organisation of the democratic process for Scottish domestic issues (ie Holyrood elections, council elections etc), whereas the UK Government as a structurally higher office to the Scottish Government is responsible for the Union as a whole including it's domestic and constitutional agenda.

So that is why the independence referendum issue is contentious, and it is why in 2012 the UK Government agreed to temporarily transfer/waver the necessary powers for avoidance of doubt to ensure the claim of control over the constitutional process for Scotland derives from Scotland at the time that it was requested. It ensured the referendum claim was set in stone and legitimised as there was no contention or debate to where the power to hold it was accountable to. The process of temporarily transferring reserved powers, known as a Section 30 order, was granted as it was an easy way to avoid the can being kicked down the road and getting lost in Holyrood and Westminster committees and potential court action - which would have weakened the pro-UK argument further - and avoided any scrutiny over who has the ultimate say over referendum in accordance with English law, Scots law (see Joanna Cherry parliament prorogation case), and the devolution settlement.

The question over what makes a referendum 'official' has never been tried and tested in court, and because the 2014 referendum was done on a Section 30 order, that has become the de-facto process for seeking a referendum - where both sides agree it should be held, rather than one side holding the correct power and legitimacy to hold one over the wishes of the other.

If and when the SNP get the landslide victory in this year's election, and request a referendum, a refusal from Westminster will lead to court action to prove who has the ultimate say. Having been involved in the debate over 'Plan B' within the party, there is no consensus for a 'wildcat referendum' that claims to be binding. A proposal not too dissimilar to it (by Chris McEleny which proposes that any SNP majority would be used as a mandate to commence independence negotiations) was defeated by a landslide.

I suspect the pro-independence argument will prevail both for the legalities (ie Scots Law being equal to English law, as well as the Edinburgh Agreement and Smith Commission recommendations) and the democratic argument, as well as the non legal binding of the UK Government's prime argument of the utterance of 'Once in a Generation' during the 2014 campaign.

A referendum by 2023 would be my guess. Any later than that would risk a Yes vote turning the 2025 election into a proxy reactionary debate in the same way the 2017 general election was for the UK's place in the European Union and it's participation in it's wider institutions (which admittedly would do the UK Government some favours to winning over soft reactionary Yes voters).

In any case it's a win-win for the Conservatives in the long term. They keep Scotland, they're saviours of the union who broke us free from the EU shackles. If Scotland votes Yes, then the the Conservatives are all but certain to remain in government for the next twenty years on sheer numbers alone from the constituency boundaries and electoral trends unless something monumental happens in voting behaviour.

Indeed, the point I was trying to make to Clansman a page or so back is that much of the rhetoric from the yes side, both on here and wider, is "everything is greener, the details will all get agreed because everyone will want to keep Scotland happy" in exactly the same way as the leave campaign did. From we can choose what type of EU membership we will want because we're not some improvised communist Eastern European state (really, have you looked out the door recently?) to the deal with rUK will be easy as both sides want the same thing.

My point was never to imply that everything will get agreed based on what Scotland wants, my point is that membership of the EU and/or it's structures is more holistic to prospective members than what a) the EU wishes to have if they had their own way b) models that are already available. So in this regard proposing joining the EU on favourable terms is based upon what now member states have been able to negotiate for themselves. The same can't be said for leaving the EU in the first place, where the UK as we all know has set the trend on how this is done and how successful any negotiation can be done. So in that way, I would argue against your point that it is not 'in exactly the same way as the leave campaign did'.

And no, this is not based on some assertion that this is more likely because Scotland is 'not some improvised communist Eastern European state'. My point in regards to Eastern countries is that the EU structures help them level up where there are economic and standard of living shortfalls more than what they are used to integrate western member states with more established economic backgrounds into one aligning system.

Hope that clears it up a bit! (Yikes, I've gotten carried away a wee bit there!)

 

[XAM2175]

Are the SNP going to disappear if Independence is achieved ? They will no longer be able to blame The English/ Westminster for everything and perhaps their record will come under closer scrutiny.

They'll be going into the subsequent elections having achieved their defining - and mostly uniting - objective so I imagine that they would either transition into being a more "conventional" centre-left party or split into several smaller parties along other lines (such as being pro- or anti-EU membership, degree of leftness, etc etc).
I'd also suggest that the other mainstream parties might find that being freed from having to defend the union an advantage in recovering their relevance.

People in the rest of the UK have no idea what it's like to live in "A one Party State" - be thankful.

Using your definition I'd submit that everybody in the UK has every idea of such a life, but the party concerned for the last few years is the Conservatives.

 

[Chester1]

Using your definition I'd submit that everybody in the UK has every idea of such a life, but the party concerned for the last few years is the Conservatives.

Both the SNPs 13 years and the Tories 10 years are dwarfed by Labour's 21 consecutive years of rule in Wales.

 

[eoff]

For anyone interested, some of the legal arguments around a non-approved scottish independence referendum are covered in the following article.

A second Scottish independence referendum without a s.30 Order? A legal question that demands a political answer

In this blog Professor Tierney argues that the legality of a unilateral referendum organised by the Scottish Parliament is a grey area. He also offers personal reflections from his experience as a parliamentary adviser at the time of the 2014 referendum and contends that a referendum held...

www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

 

[317 forever]

I think England is too big and diverse to really hold together an identity in the same way as Scotland. It's true that a lot of the trappings of Scottish identity were themselves made up or tacked together in the 19th century from very different island, highland and lowland cultures. It's easier to manage that though, than to convince people from Yorkshire or Cornwall that they are basically the same thing as Londoners. Personally the identity I've always felt most strongly was European, and since that was torn away from me with no consideration at all, so mostly my attitude is a pox on all your houses, and I'll quite happily watch all your identities perish.

A lack of proper devolution in England is one of the key missing pieces which makes devolution harder to carry off, because you will always have complaints about EVEL and a failure to properly allocate things as UK vs local spending. The ideal would probably have been something a bit smaller than England. Partly that;s because I don't think England is a coherent enough unit, and is too big to run regional affairs effectively. It would also have had the effect of blunting both English and Scottish nationalism.

English devolution wasn't done though. In its place we just have the deeply-divisive Mayoral system where minor political celebrities fight it out to see who can hoover up the most minor powers from their local authorities. That leaves the English feeling bitter, and the Scottish, Welsh and Irish feeling othered (whether they like it or not). The only people who are really happy are the increasingly remote politicians in Westminster, who are basically just closing down all the devolved services in England and focusing on the really important decisions, like hollowed-out volcano or Death-Star.

Brexit has changed the divide in England. It used to be between working class and middle class / wealthy areas. Now it is between most Metropolitan areas and small towns / rural areas.

By comparison, although parts of the Central Belt are poorer than the rest of Scotland, Scotland is a more homogeneous country.

I am not. People are insisting Scots would keep British Citizenship after independence, I am stating its a massive stretch to assume that British Citizenship would exist for much time after independence because unlike Irish independence etc, Scottish independence kills Britain as a state. I don't think that is a bad thing but I do think the assumption that Scots would stay British citizens shows that it is being side stepped.

Personally I think the better option would be a question along the lines of do you wish to disolve the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, put seperately to the 4 nations and if any vote yes then they leave. I think England would vote to disolve the UK (as well as Scotland), Northern Ireland and Wales might vote to stay but without Scotland and England staying in the Union they wouldn't have a choice.

I doubt that such a referendum would be a good idea. Plenty of people in Scotland wanting Scottish independence would still respect that it was not their decision whether or not England & Wales remain jointly in a united kingdom (with small u & k). Conversely, many English people see themselves as British end of story so would vote No, or more likely consider the referendum a bizarre idea in the first place.

Also, if the outcome were as you suggest, it would repeat the Brexit fiasco of some UK nations having the opposite outcome imposed on them.

 

[Arran Aird]

HI All

dont take what the NATs say as gospil and speak fror Scotland, i voted remain but am 100% for the UK as many are.

parts of Scotland like orkney and Shetland want nothing to do with Edinburgh and have said so , a diffcult one for the NATs

the deal was not what was wanted by them they privaty were hopping for no deal to further their cause.

The Nats used to be very much against the EEC as it was then and a good third of their membership votet to leave.

Regards Arran

 

[RT4038]

I doubt that such a referendum would be a good idea. Plenty of people in Scotland wanting Scottish independence would still respect that it was not their decision whether or not England & Wales remain jointly in a united kingdom (with small u & k). Conversely, many English people see themselves as British end of story so would vote No, or more likely consider the referendum a bizarre idea in the first place.

Also, if the outcome were as you suggest, it would repeat the Brexit fiasco of some UK nations having the opposite outcome imposed on them.

So it is ok to have a referendum for some people, but not others as you might not like the result? Hmm....

 

[317 forever]

So it is ok to have a referendum for some people, but not others as you might not like the result? Hmm....

I think you'll find I did not advocate some people but not others having a vote in such a referendum. I was advising against this as a notion to have a referendum on in the first place.

 

[RT4038]

I think you'll find I did not advocate some people but not others having a vote in such a referendum. I was advising against this as a notion to have a referendum on in the first place.

You are suggesting that it is ok for the Scots to have a referendum concerning their membership of the United Kingdom, but not ok for the English to have a referendum on the same subject? Presumably because you do not like the implications of a leave vote?

I would not go as far as suggesting an English referendum - perhaps more a referendum on the rUK being 'Mother Britain' or a separate entity only conferring citizenship rights in a similar manner to the Scots independence proposal.

 

[najaB]

You are suggesting that it is ok for the Scots to have a referendum concerning their membership of the United Kingdom, but not ok for the English to have a referendum on the same subject?

With respect, that is not what he said. The issue with the a single referendum question "Do you want to dissolve the United Kingdom", put to all the citizens of the UK is that a Scot who votes Yes because he want independence for Scotland is also voting Yes for English, Welsh and Northern Irish independence. The only people who should vote on Welsh independence are the Welsh, similarly for the English and the Northern Irisn.

 

[GusB]

HI All

dont take what the NATs say as gospil and speak fror Scotland, i voted remain but am 100% for the UK as many are.

parts of Scotland like orkney and Shetland want nothing to do with Edinburgh and have said so , a diffcult one for the NATs

the deal was not what was wanted by them they privaty were hopping for no deal to further their cause.

The Nats used to be very much against the EEC as it was then and a good third of their membership votet to leave.

Regards Arran

Who are these NATs to which you refer?

As far as I was aware, NATS are primarily concerned with the safe passage of aircraft into, out of and through our airspace.

 

[Clansman]

HI All

dont take what the NATs say as gospil and speak fror Scotland, i voted remain but am 100% for the UK as many are.

parts of Scotland like orkney and Shetland want nothing to do with Edinburgh and have said so , a diffcult one for the NATs

the deal was not what was wanted by them they privaty were hopping for no deal to further their cause.

The Nats used to be very much against the EEC as it was then and a good third of their membership votet to leave.

Regards Arran

What are these 'NATs' you speak of?

Nationalists? Scottish Nationalists? British Nationalists? Civic-Nationalists? Supporters of Scottish independence from Westminster? All are completely different.

parts of Scotland like orkney and Shetland want nothing to do with Edinburgh and have said so , a difficult one for the NATs

What makes you say that? Yes, there is the opinion with one or two people who feel more Nordic, or would simply like to remain in the UK. They have not 'said so' other than word of mouth and not political action. If their opinion was a majority view then they'd have voted in a pro Nordic or anti Holyrood Orkney/Shetland candidates in previous elections, wouldn't they.

So your point has no weighting out with the echo chamber of quoting one or two anti Holyrood bloggers by the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, and George Galloway's twitter feed.

Not completely hard for the 'NATs' - whoever they are - when there's never in the existence of Holyrood been any mandate to address Orkney and Shetland's status in Scotland.

It's laughable and desperate how many anti-Scottish independence campaigners try and create a false and untested majoritarian narrative in Orkney and Shetland to use as some sort of bargaining chip to spite Scotland in a post independence scenario. How ironic.

The Nats used to be very much against the EEC as it was then and a good third of their membership votet to leave.

Again, who are the 'Nats' - you imply it's the SNP with your last comment. A third of SNP members voting to leave the EU is a minority. It's not about what members of the SNP want, even if 2/3 of them voted to Remain in the EU. As for the EEC, that was at the time when the EU joined the single market and the SNP were in the fringes of Scottish politics, when just as the ship building and coal industries were closing down, economic integration with Europe seemed more of a threat than an opportunity for Scottish industry. We live in different times to 35+ years ago, and the SNP have different members, as do every party.

Lord Halifax of the Conservative party was a leading supporter of appeasement with Nazi Germany after the invasion of France - you don't see anyone trying to call the Conservatives of today 'pro Nazi or pro appeasement' do you, or even the Royal Family for the actions of Edward or the her majesty's immediate family.

 

[eoff]

The Nats has for a long time been a common term in the UK for the SNP. For example here is a quote from Hansard in 1977...

Scotland And Wales Bill​

Volume 925: debated on Thursday 10 February 1977​

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn

(Kinross and West Perthshire)



With respect to my right hon. Friend, may I suggest that it was brought in not to stem the drift from the Labour Party but to stem the anticipated drift from the Labour Party to the Nats?

 

[najaB]

The Nats has for a long time been a common term in the UK for the SNP.

Common, is not the same as universally understood. Especially when written as if it was an acronym.

 

[Butts]

The Nats has for a long time been a common term in the UK for the SNP. For example here is a quote from Hansard in 1977...

Now there was a character Nicholas Fairbairn - A "Scottish Dandy" if ever there was one

Could do with a few more colourful figures in Scottish Politics today - not the faceless party apparatchik's that litter Holyrood and Westminster.

 

[Cloud Strife]

You are suggesting that it is ok for the Scots to have a referendum concerning their membership of the United Kingdom, but not ok for the English to have a referendum on the same subject? Presumably because you do not like the implications of a leave vote?

I would not go as far as suggesting an English referendum - perhaps more a referendum on the rUK being 'Mother Britain' or a separate entity only conferring citizenship rights in a similar manner to the Scots independence proposal.

I personally think that England should hold an independence referendum, as a federal rUK made up of NI, Wales and Scotland would be viable as a single state. It would solve the issue of Scottish independence, and the Tories would certainly be happier with an English parliament that they dominate.

Certainly the English are currently very hard done by with the current constitutional settlement - let's say that the Tories win the most seats in England in 2024, but Labour, the SNP and others put together a majority to oust them. Is that in any way fair or reasonable to have a government with a minority of English MP's running English affairs?

IMO, many of the problems that Scotland has with the UK right now could easily be solved through federation and proper devolution. And I say this as a pro-indy SNP member.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I believe Scotland can be persuaded to vote for the Union. There's an annoying sweeping assumption-left/right, English/Scottish, that the UK is doomed, in fact, 58% for Yes is fairly reasonable considering there's not one person in the entire country capaigning for the Union at the moment. On the left, you have London Labour (is there any such thing as non-London Labour?) who aren't particuarly sympathetic about the UK anyway, and the Tories who are stuck in a "Scotland hates us-therefore we can't do anything" mentality-Douglas Ross explained it very well in The Times not long ago.

An English Parliament is massively needed. It'll make the English and Scots equals for the first time in 300 years. I believe this, and other factors both within and outside government control will dampen the fire for independence.

 

[najaB]

I believe Scotland can be persuaded to vote for the Union.

That's the thing, up to a few years ago the SNP were trying to get people to vote for independence, more the unionist parties are trying to get people to vote for the Union.

This isn't sustainable long term, and independence is inevitable unless this can be turned back around.

 

[XAM2175]

considering there's not one person in the entire country capaigning for the Union at the moment

There are already ads appearing on social media from the likes of "Young Unionists in Scotland" and "Business for Union", though in fairness beyond the names of the groups they're more anti-SNP at the moment than they are pro-union.

As najaB notes, the balance has very much shifted to putting the pro-union side on the defensive and the ~58% polling in preference of independence is occurring now without an officially active independence campaign - if you exclude the one apparently being run by the Conservatives, that is.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

There are already ads appearing on social media from the likes of "Young Unionists in Scotland" and "Business for Union", though in fairness beyond the names of the groups they're more anti-SNP at the moment than they are pro-union.

As najaB notes, the balance has very much shifted to putting the pro-union side on the defensive and the ~58% polling in preference of independence is occurring now without an officially active independence campaign - if you exclude the one apparently being run by the Conservatives, that is.

Those aren't really going to help. You need something with the force of Independence movement you have now to cut through. The problem is, that's incredibly difficult when the independence movement is driven by Nicola Stugeon, who has more or less married the fate of her entire existence with achieving independence. She's pretty much fighting her soul, and if your going up against someome fighting for their soul, well you need to make sure you have a bigger soul.

I campaigned for the Tories in the 2017 General Election and can say the independence movement reminds me a lot of Momentum at the time. They were unstoppable and a complete force of nature. Why? They had a semi-religon which they believed in and a leader they were devoted to. Of course, Labour, and I am sure the Independence movement, is really just a house of cards. Take away the leader and the devotion dies quickly. Now, Sturgeon can't be removed-unless the Salmond scandal prompts her dismissal, but what the Tories did do wrong in that election is go in fighting evangelical political followers with nothing to offer. The same defeat would happen to the Unionists if Gordon Brown is wheeled out again to give a speech of the merits of the status quo.

Which brings me onto Naja's point. It can be explained like this-the UK is a shop, but Sturgeon is stealing the shop's customers with the wonderful, fantastic new product. What do you do? Well, if your a good businessman you need a better product, which is why some kind of a new constitutional settlement is so important. Sure independence looks great, but it looks less appealing if another future is on offer that doesn't require you to gamble your mortgage, savings and pensions. If the Unionists can fight the cause of a dream and a vision, like the seperatists are, they would be able to regain that crucial 10% of Scottish swing voters who have currently joined Yes.

Besides, three years out from a referendum, this should be an achievable task. Bare in mind, the Independence plan is far, far from watertight. The holes in the plan are yet to be fully scrutinised, and whether the independence plan can hold through the stress of a vigorous, year long campaign, complete with TV debates, interviews and new research etc remains to be seen-my guess is that it won't, and Stugeon, deep down knows this-which is why she needs a referendum this year to give the best possible chance of winning it. She isn't as confident as she presents herself-she knows she has once chance at this at there are still plenty of obstacles in her way.

 

[najaB]

The holes in the plan are yet to be fully scrutinised, and whether the independence plan can hold through the stress of a vigorous, year long campaign, complete with TV debates, interviews and new research etc remains to be seen-my guess is that it won't, and Stugeon, deep down knows this-which is why she needs a referendum this year to give the best possible chance of winning it.

An alternative interpretation for the urgency behind the independence drive - and the one that the SNP are likely to put forward - is to minimize the time that the UK government's policies have to damage Scotland.

By way of a random analogy that just came to mind: if you're hitchhiking and you think the person giving you the lift is an axe-murderer it's better to make an excuse and try to get them to stop in the dark scary woods rather than wait until you (hopefully!) reach the next town.

 

[Journeyman]

An alternative interpretation for the urgency behind the independence drive - and the one that the SNP are likely to put forward - is to minimize the time that the UK government's policies have to damage Scotland.

That's the official reason. I think it has a lot more to do with capitalising on Brexit teething problems. If it eventually settles down and the average person isn't badly affected by it, people will be much less willing to tolerate the upheaval of independence. The SNP will be able to exploit any initial problems to their advantage.

Disclaimer: I remain fully convinced that Brexit is the dumbest thing the UK has ever done, but I'm not one of the "told you so" types who want it to be a disaster to prove a point. We've run out of options, and we have to try and make it work. Throwing independence into the mix as well is more risk than I'm willing to stomach, and I think maintaining unity and stability within the UK is far more important than Scotland attempting to rejoin the EU, at least for the next few years.

 

[najaB]

I remain fully convinced that Brexit is the dumbest thing the UK has ever done, but I'm not one of the "told you so" types who want it to be a disaster to prove a point. We've run out of options, and we have to try and make it work. Throwing independence into the mix as well is more risk than I'm willing to stomach, and I think maintaining unity and stability within the UK is far more important than Scotland attempting to rejoin the EU, at least for the next few years.

I'm of exactly the same mind as you on this, but unfortunately Brexit has been a poison pill in Scotland not only because of what has been done, but also in how it has been done. Nonsense like JRM talking about "happy British fish" while Scottish fishing businesses are circling the drain won't help in the slightest.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

An alternative interpretation for the urgency behind the independence drive - and the one that the SNP are likely to put forward - is to minimize the time that the UK government's policies have to damage Scotland.

By way of a random analogy that just came to mind: if you're hitchhiking and you think the person giving you the lift is an axe-murderer it's better to make an excuse and try to get them to stop in the dark scary woods rather than wait until you (hopefully!) reach the next town.

Yes, but the problem with that analogy is that the UK government isn't evil or delibrately harmful-it's just inept. As inept as any other government. Plus, your other explanation for the urgency only works if independence carries less pain than the current government-which logically, it cannot seeing as the independence process will likely take longer to complete than the time this government has in office.

Besides, the Tories are now running consistently behind Labour. Change is afoot and the UK might quietly somach a softer Brexit once the inital drives from 2016 go away. 14 years of government would be too long for a Party to be in power without becoming toxic to the entire electorate and if Sturgeon can see a Labour government looming (which looks more likely than it did six months ago) she knows she's stuffed.

 

[XAM2175]

Well, if your a good businessman you need a better product, which is why some kind of a new constitutional settlement is so important.

And the question that such a suggestion prompts is "can the people offering such a settlement be trusted to deliver it?" In 2014 Cameron waxed lyrical about the benefits of the union, signed his name to the "solemn vow", and then went back to Westminster the next morning and introduced English Votes for English Laws. After that came the Brexit fiasco that has included Johnson's multiple displays of being completely and totally untrustworthy. Why should the Scottish electorate believe that this time will be different - especially if the new settlement requires the approval of the rest of the UK too?

Besides, the Tories are now running consistently behind Labour. Change is afoot and the UK might quietly somach a softer Brexit once the inital drives from 2016 go away.

"Don't worry dears, Labour will probably win the next election" doesn't do much to alleviate concern about what happens between now and then, or what happens if Labour in fact don't win the election, or what happens when Labour lose a subsequent election without having implemented a new constitutional settlement.