Is Nicola Sturgeon talking the language of an unexpected Unionist?

It started about a month ago with Scottish Labour attempting to appropriate the language of the "Yes" campaign.

Driven by a need for votes and a positive vision after being (successfully) cast as a "negative" party during the referendum, Scottish Labour went on the offence and parked its tanks on the lawn of the SNP’s most treasured vocabulary.

Language is supremely important in politics. It frames a party, dictates its tone and affects the character of its campaigns. The binary "Yes/No" of the referendum hugely damaged Scottish Labour and the party has recognised that, if it wants to survive as a political force, it has to move the national political conversation beyond the categories of the referendum. Or at least, contest them.

So Murphy struck back, trying to claim “Yes” for Scottish Labour: an exercise which has not proved damage free – the party recently deleted a “Yes for Labour” webpage that attracted much ridicule.

However, Scottish Labour are not the only party to be appropriating the language and reasoning of their opponents. Just as the party are claiming “Yes” so the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon in particular, are conducting their own raid, deep into unionist territory.

In a recent speech at UCL Nicola Sturgeon talked of the positive examples Scotland has set in the UK “…which could be followed more widely across these islands.”

I hate Unionists.

And yet you're one yourself.

No, I am a Loyalist.

Which by default is a unionist you chod.

No a Loyalist is loyal to the Monarchy. A Unionist is loyal to Parliament.

You really are a very special person.

No a Loyalist is loyal to the Monarchy. A Unionist is loyal to Parliament.

That's pretty much not the definition of them.

I think that the SNP have realised that they can achieve most of what they want for Scotland while remaining a member of the union. Although they lost the referendum it was really a good thing for them. It energised a young and disillusioned electorate towards the SNP. Although they would be mad to want another referendum during the next parliament in return for backing up a Labour minority government, they will inevitably lose it again and people will get fed up of nationalism simply for the sake of it as we saw in Quebec.

If there was a shift towards the left and social democracy in British politics the argument that Scotland is politically separate to Westminster would evaporate. Although by any measure British politics is not moving towards the left. I think Sturgeon is saying that she is content so long as a relatively left-wing government that will listen to the SNP is in power in Westminster. But this being politics in the Labour and SNP make a deal after the election I really do doubt how long it could last, and the intentions of both sides. Both want political control over Scotland, and neither side are going to be willing to lose.

I'm not so sure about this

Although the SNP is seeing record numbers in the polls I don't think it will equate to an Aye in another referendum in the short term. The demographics haven't changed, and I'm sure the eldery will turn out in record numbers again to vote no. It is something that maybe in 20-30 years time will be a probable victory. Another exhausting referendum battle is a gamble that might do more harm to Sturgeon and the SNP than good. They should focus on a longer term strategy instead; entrenching the SNP into the social fabric of Scotland, forging links with Trade Unions thereby replacing Labour, pushing the positive arguments for independence, sorting out the nitty gritty stuff in finer detail and keeping up anti-Westminster rhetoric. Another few Conservative governments wouldn't hurt the chances of a Yes result either. This is ultimately the safer and smarter option.

Plus the promise of North Sea oil financing an independent Scotland has been harmed by the recent tumble in oil prices. But if they could sort out a solution to the currency issue and propose Scotland as a new financial centre I'm sure Scotland will be able to sustain itself. But that would have to come with deregulation and a lower tax rate, not exactly a popular position for a centre-left party to take.

Although the SNP is seeing record numbers in the polls I don't think it will equate to an Aye in another referendum in the short term. The demographics haven't changed, and I'm sure the eldery will turn out in record numbers again to vote no. It is something that maybe in 20-30 years time will be a probable victory. Another exhausting referendum battle is a gamble that might do more harm to Sturgeon and the SNP than good. They should focus on a longer term strategy instead; entrenching the SNP into the social fabric of Scotland, forging links with Trade Unions thereby replacing Labour, pushing the positive arguments for independence, sorting out the nitty gritty stuff in finer detail and keeping up anti-Westminster rhetoric. Another few Conservative governments wouldn't hurt the chances of a Yes result either. This is ultimately the safer and smarter option.

Plus the promise of North Sea oil financing an independent Scotland has been harmed by the recent tumble in oil prices. But if they could sort out a solution to the currency issue and propose Scotland as a new financial centre I'm sure Scotland will be able to sustain itself. But that would have to come with deregulation and a lower tax rate, not exactly a popular position for a centre-left party to take.

Well you tell me.

No a Loyalist is loyal to the Monarchy. A Unionist is loyal to Parliament.

To the best of my knowledge, that's why the currency union was needed for scotland(and correctly rejected). With that in mind, if you want to be a financial centre and have a decent currency then you'd have to go with the euro. That is of course, hoping the germans dont want something to rival Frankfurt, and the other point being the euro is a trashy currency.

I think a lot of people who voted no may change that if there was a vote in a few years. I happen to think the same as you on this issue however I don't think it would be a complete write off.

I think a lot of people who voted no may change that if there was a vote in a few years.