Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

The problem with "pro-indy" majorities or minorities being really a sign of anything is that they are political parties with full agendas. Opinion polling the past month seems to indicate that "no" has a slight edge, even if "yes" parties will clean up tomorrow.

That's true. But in this election one of the big issues has been a referendum. The pro-indy parties are campaigning on the basis of having a referendum, the Tories are campaigning as the only way to stop a referendum and Labour are campaigning that a referendum is a distraction and we're in a pandemic.

You're right, but I think the campaign matters and this is about a referendum. We can't pretend that people voted SNP without considering that there might be a referendum - so in my view they will have a mandate (generally I think parties have a mandate for their manifesto if they win).

Also, frankly, if they have a majority it doesn't matter whether it's a sign of anything or not. They have the votes to pass legislation for a referendum and start a confrontation with Westminster.

Although I agree I think Scotland's possibly moving to a political situation where the pro-indy parties have enough votes to consistently win a majority/form a government but possibly not enough to win a referendum.

Labour in Scotland seems to be collapsing/have collapsed and Green seems to be surging. That is in line with European trends of traditional center left parties really struggling right now and Greens doing much better. I'm not sure there is actually a connection to independence.

The Greens are pro-indy too. The pro-indy parties (SNP, Alba, Greens, Scottish Socialists) will work together, would all hapily form a coalition or demand and supply suppport for a minority government around the issue of a referendum.

[alfred russel]

The Greens are pro-indy too.

I know.

It is preordained at this point that there will be a pro independence majority...I just don't see why that should mean there should be a new referendum.

[Sheilbh]

It is preordained at this point that there will be a pro independence majority...I just don't see why that should mean there should be a new referendum.

It's been the central issue of the campaign. They've campaigned for it. If they have a majority they have a mandate. Especially if the SNP win a majority - which looks likely - because the Scottish Parliament has a voting system that was designed to avoid majority government/encourage coalitions.

In a way I think that's the entire basis of our system.

Having said that in then just purely political because the legal power to organise a referendum lies with Westminster and the government have said they won't. I think that argument becomes more difficult if there's a strong pro-indy majority - because we can see the will of Scottish voters. It then becomes a fight between Holyrood and Westminster, plus within the pro-indy side between hardliners who'll want to organise an unlawful referendum or consider a UDI v moderates who won't but will use Westminster intransigence as a future campaign issue.

[The Larch]

There was a "Brexit means Brexit" kind of story doing the rounds in Spanish Twitter last night. It goes as follows.

Apparently a 25 y.o. woman from Valencia travelled yesterday to Gatwick, with the intention of looking for a job in the UK. She had previously lived and worked in the UK in 2019, but went back to Spain back then. Upon her arrival she presents her passport, negative Covid test, and states that the purpose of her trip is trying to find work and that she'll be staying with family members currently living in the UK. She also has a valid British social security number, but what she doesn't have is the EU settled status, and because of that border guards detain her as they deemed that her attempt to enter the UK was illegal.

She was then taken to a room with other 7-8 people in a similar situation, who all had had their cellphones confiscated, and informed that she'd shortly be taken to a detention facility until her situation was resolved. She offered to get on the first plane back to Spain in order to avoid this but agents informed her that that was not possible and, if deported, it'd be them the ones organizing her trip, not her.

During the whole time, her family members living in the UK gor worried when she didn't appear and started trying to locate her. After some time they manage to find the phone number for the facility where she had been kept in the airport but they're informed that she has already been taken to a proper dettention centre, but are not told where. After cold-calling several centres she is finally located in a facility in Bedfordshire, where she had been taken in the middle of the night and where she is meant to wait for 3 days until her case is heard by the Home Office and her eventual deportation is arranged.


Now, do I think this person was in the wrong? Surely, she didn't have the proper paperwork, either she mistakenly thought that having lived and worked in the UK in the recent past and having some official documents would make it ok or she was massively naive about the whole thing. Now, is the UK's response appropriate? It seems not, IMO, it looks quite draconian and a huge overkill to keep a person in a detention facility for several days when she could have easily been made to board the next plane back home right there at the airport when she arrived and it was checked that she didn't have the proper papers.

[alfred russel]

Now, is the UK's response appropriate? It seems not, IMO, it looks quite draconian and a huge overkill to keep a person in a detention facility for several days when she could have easily been made to board the next plane back home right there at the airport when she arrived and it was checked that she didn't have the proper papers.

100% but there is also an assumption that us first worlders don't get sucked into the shitty immigration underbelly. If you flip the country from Spain to Nigeria it wouldn't hit the radar.

[alfred russel]

It is preordained at this point that there will be a pro independence majority...I just don't see why that should mean there should be a new referendum.

It's been the central issue of the campaign. They've campaigned for it. If they have a majority they have a mandate. Especially if the SNP win a majority - which looks likely - because the Scottish Parliament has a voting system that was designed to avoid majority government/encourage coalitions.

In a way I think that's the entire basis of our system.

Having said that in then just purely political because the legal power to organise a referendum lies with Westminster and the government have said they won't. I think that argument becomes more difficult if there's a strong pro-indy majority - because we can see the will of Scottish voters. It then becomes a fight between Holyrood and Westminster, plus within the pro-indy side between hardliners who'll want to organise an unlawful referendum or consider a UDI v moderates who won't but will use Westminster intransigence as a future campaign issue.

I've been following the scottish parliamentary elections pretty closely (I'm developing a terrible political gambling addiction). I think SNP are going to fall short of the 69 seats they won in the 2011 election before the previous referendum--which obviously failed. I think it is on a knife's edge if they get to 65 (how do you like that "knife's edge" thrown in there to prove I'm reading your papers?)

But the 69 won by SNP in 2011 preceding a failed referendum shows just how poorly the parliamentary elections indicate a desire for independence.

[Sheilbh]

100% but there is also an assumption that us first worlders don't get sucked into the shitty immigration underbelly. If you flip the country from Spain to Nigeria it wouldn't hit the radar.

Yeah I agree. Immigration rules are shit and I've no doubt immigration enforcement people in the UK are awful. But once you're in that situation (telling the border guards that you've arrived to look for work without a work permit) then you're kind of in the immigration system and will be detained and deported in their process. And the minimum time between detention and deportation is 3 days notice in the UK - you can't legally automatically deport someone and you can't not detain someone who's said they're trying to enter the country illegally.

And it is crap - reminds me of a friend who was travelling for a few months between jobs and got detained for a few days somewhere. I can't remember the country but she'd lost her visa form or visa waiver form which she needed to exit so was put in an airport cell for several days.

[The Larch]

100% but there is also an assumption that us first worlders don't get sucked into the shitty immigration underbelly. If you flip the country from Spain to Nigeria it wouldn't hit the radar.

Yeah I agree. Immigration rules are shit and I've no doubt immigration enforcement people in the UK are awful. But once you're in that situation (telling the border guards that you've arrived to look for work without a work permit) then you're kind of in the immigration system and will be detained and deported in their process. And the minimum time between detention and deportation is 3 days notice in the UK - you can't legally automatically deport someone and you can't not detain someone who's said they're trying to enter the country illegally.

And it is crap - reminds me of a friend who was travelling for a few months between jobs and got detained for a few days somewhere. I can't remember the country but she'd lost her visa form or visa waiver form which she needed to exit so was put in an airport cell for several days.

But when you're refused entry to the UK can't you just be put in the following plane back to the same country without having to be sent to a detention center? This seems like the worst possible solution.

The situation is not helped by this process being something that was taken for granted for decades, and now you have lots of people who wrongly think that not that much has changed, or it's not such a big deal or whatever, due to more or less willing ignorance, or authorities not having made 100% clear what the new requiriments are.

[Sheilbh]

I've been following the scottish parliamentary elections pretty closely (I'm developing a terrible political gambling addiction). I think SNP are going to fall short of the 69 seats they won in the 2011 election before the previous referendum--which obviously failed. I think it is on a knife's edge if they get to 65 (how do you like that "knife's edge" thrown in there to prove I'm reading your papers?)

I'm impressed and surprised at anyone taking an interest in a devolved administration's election - and picking up local colour too

I'm not a gambler except for the Grand National, but I think you're underestimating the SNP. My guess is they'll end up in the 65-70 territory. I'm very unsure on Alba (one pollster has them doing well enough to win a few seats, the others don't - but I also think it's likely that Alex Salmond brand recognition in his region might mean they win at least one seat). And the Greens will do well. I've no idea who'll come second though

But the 69 won by SNP in 2011 preceding a failed referendum shows just how poorly the parliamentary elections indicate a desire for independence.

I agree - although I'd add that in 2011 support for independence was polling at around 30-40%.

But I think this is where the parliamentary and plebiscitary interact. I don't think winning a parliamentary election is sufficient for declaring independence (or leaving the EU) but I think it is enough of mandate for a referendum - to sort of pass the buck to the people and ask voters whether they want to leave or remain.

In my view once the voters have either consented to current arrangements or withdrawn their consent to be governed it's then back to parliament to implement. And it has to be because we're back in the politics of trade-offs and cost/benefit after the principles issues of consent/not; leave/remain; yes/no. They may need elections to resolve those issues - we certainly did over Brexit and they ultimately delivered a very strong majority to Johnson and his vision of Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened if Scotland voted for independence - although I suspect this time the leave/pro-indy side would also fragment while in Britain the remain vote fragmented while the leave vote consolidated.

[Sheilbh]

But when you're refused entry to the UK can't you just be put in the following plane back to the same country without having to be sent to a detention center? This seems like the worst possible solution.

My guess is that it's just process and bureaucracy at this point. I'd be surprised if any country just let you into the airport to book and board a new flight - I mean for a start they'd need to assign you a police officer to make sure that you don't just leave because there's no other checks once you're through passport control. So if you're refused entry to the country then there's paperwork etc so you are formally deported and they can close off the paperwork rather than through informally getting the next plane back. You are unfortunately in the immigration enforcement system. Also my understanding from working with airlines is is if someone's refused entry then the airline that flew them is obliged to fly them back on the same route.

Also this case is a little weird. A lot of people who are detained are still going to try and stay - so non-visa tourists (Americans, Australians, Brazilians and I think now Europeans - basically most of the world) are sometimes detained if they don't have any evidence of onward travel like a return flight or a flight to their next destination. I've heard this happen with a few gap-travel people and normally when they're detained they just have to provide evidence most people who are detained at the border are normally for things like no evidence of onward travel - many people will appeal - they can provide evidence. They're just detained at the airport while they provide that evidence or allowed entry for one month during which they can obtain evidence.

It's only people who aren't believed to have a valid reason for entering the UK or who are not intending to still try and enter who are deported and if you're deported, you need three days notice so that's probably detention centre rather than cell in the airport (which they need). As I say I think it's probably all very rule and process driven once you are, unfortunately, in the immigration system.

The situation is not helped by this process being something that was taken for granted for decades, and now you have lots of people who wrongly think that not that much has changed, or it's not such a big deal or whatever, due to more or less willing ignorance, or authorities not having made 100% clear what the new requiriments are.

Agreed. But on the other hand I'm not really sure how it could have been clearer from British or European authorities that freedom of movement is ending and the UK is leaving the EU.

I have sympathy on a personal level, but it feels a bit like Brits in Spain. At a certain point if you're planning to find work or live in a country and you know there's something called Brexit going on it's probably worth checking the rules.

Edit: And I can't think of a profession more likely to encourage little Hitlers or computer says no mindless application of the rules than immigration enforcement/border guards - but I'm aware that may just be prejudice on my part

[alfred russel]

I'm not a gambler except for the Grand National, but I think you're underestimating the SNP. My guess is they'll end up in the 65-70 territory. I'm very unsure on Alba (one pollster has them doing well enough to win a few seats, the others don't - but I also think it's likely that Alex Salmond brand recognition in his region might mean they win at least one seat). And the Greens will do well. I've no idea who'll come second though

I think 62-68 is the most likely outcome.

While polling shows their constituency vote has surged - and could get to 50%, their regional vote has collapsed--most polls now show them under 40%. They only got 4 regional seats in the last election, and if they actually do get less percent of the vote, plus more constituency votes, they will probably get less than 4.

Last time they got 59 of the 73 possible constituency seats, so a surge there has very limited potential. There are two islands that are their own constituencies with very strong liberal democrats, and another riding with the same situation, so they are really down to 70 potential constituency votes.

5 of those remaining 11 places they didn't win are in South Scotland, where they got 3 of their 4 regional seats. So if they win more seats there they probably lose them at the regional level.

I think it is a real stretch that they get to 70. I'd put the odds at about even that they get to 65.

[Josquius]

There was a "Brexit means Brexit" kind of story doing the rounds in Spanish Twitter last night. It goes as follows.

Apparently a 25 y.o. woman from Valencia travelled yesterday to Gatwick, with the intention of looking for a job in the UK. She had previously lived and worked in the UK in 2019, but went back to Spain back then. Upon her arrival she presents her passport, negative Covid test, and states that the purpose of her trip is trying to find work and that she'll be staying with family members currently living in the UK. She also has a valid British social security number, but what she doesn't have is the EU settled status, and because of that border guards detain her as they deemed that her attempt to enter the UK was illegal.

She was then taken to a room with other 7-8 people in a similar situation, who all had had their cellphones confiscated, and informed that she'd shortly be taken to a detention facility until her situation was resolved. She offered to get on the first plane back to Spain in order to avoid this but agents informed her that that was not possible and, if deported, it'd be them the ones organizing her trip, not her.

During the whole time, her family members living in the UK gor worried when she didn't appear and started trying to locate her. After some time they manage to find the phone number for the facility where she had been kept in the airport but they're informed that she has already been taken to a proper dettention centre, but are not told where. After cold-calling several centres she is finally located in a facility in Bedfordshire, where she had been taken in the middle of the night and where she is meant to wait for 3 days until her case is heard by the Home Office and her eventual deportation is arranged.


Now, do I think this person was in the wrong? Surely, she didn't have the proper paperwork, either she mistakenly thought that having lived and worked in the UK in the recent past and having some official documents would make it ok or she was massively naive about the whole thing. Now, is the UK's response appropriate? It seems not, IMO, it looks quite draconian and a huge overkill to keep a person in a detention facility for several days when she could have easily been made to board the next plane back home right there at the airport when she arrived and it was checked that she didn't have the proper papers.

I can only guess she said something wrong (poor English?) or ran into a particularly dick headed border guard.
As entering a country with a plan to work illegally is indeed something that should get her detained...
But why the hell would anyone in their right mind admit to doing that?
Entering a country for job interviews, fulling intending to go through the proper process if you are offered a job...Surely this is legal?

The border guard she met:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5hNZkvQ_yo

[Jacob]

There is a problem though. If Scotland has a referendum every 10 years, and only needs to get 50%+1 to leave, an asymmetry is created. Votes to remain being merely provisional whereas a vote to leave is permanent. It is not really Scotland deciding its own future when a tiny majority to leave occurs on a single date shortly after brexit and while the UK is being run by a shapeshifting creep.

Yeah, it makes it incumbent to maintain the consent of the various constituent parts. It's not a sport that requires a fair win-or-lose resolution. It's kind of like a marriage, that requires the buy-in of both parties on a continual base. You only need one party to decide they want a divorce for real once, and it's over. If you want to stop having the tearful "I can't go on like this" blow out fight every couple of years, you should figure out what it'll take to get the marriage to work. You can't just say "you said you didn't want a divorce two years ago, you can't have one now."

It's been the same in Canada with Quebec. In practice, we don't seem to be getting independence referendums every few years but if the political situation was such that we did have them every couple of years then that's people's right of self-determination. I think that in reality, referendum fatigue would set in and support would turn against it.

[HVC]

i think referendum fatigue would hit the remain side before the leave side. so if separatists keep forcing the issue they'll win

[Sheilbh]

I think 62-68 is the most likely outcome.

While polling shows their constituency vote has surged - and could get to 50%, their regional vote has collapsed--most polls now show them under 40%. They only got 4 regional seats in the last election, and if they actually do get less percent of the vote, plus more constituency votes, they will probably get less than 4.

Last time they got 59 of the 73 possible constituency seats, so a surge there has very limited potential. There are two islands that are their own constituencies with very strong liberal democrats, and another riding with the same situation, so they are really down to 70 potential constituency votes.

5 of those remaining 11 places they didn't win are in South Scotland, where they got 3 of their 4 regional seats. So if they win more seats there they probably lose them at the regional level.

I think it is a real stretch that they get to 70. I'd put the odds at about even that they get to 65.

Fair analysis.

I think a relatively small swing in the constituency vote could win them a decent haul - even if they lose some list MSPs. Especially if there's a bit of a variable swing going on - so I think the SNP might get, say, a 3-5% swing from the Tories which is very helpful for them and could get them 5-6 seats, but they might lose a bit of the vote to Labour (but probably not enough for Labour to actually win many seats).

Agreed it's unilely they'll get to 70. I suppose I'd guess 68 (hence 65-70 ).

But why the hell would anyone in their right mind admit to doing that?

If they didn't think it was an issue - they thought they could move here to work and live.