Scottish Independence

[MatskiMonk]

and in the mean time a lot of people who voted against it would probably end up migrating south

On the flipside, It could also also be the easiest way by a mile for a Brit to become a European citizen again. I've a strong desire to leave this country, but realistically, it's too big of a step for me to take, to move to any of the continental EU nations that interest me... Scotland on the other hand... it's just up the road, it's not really any different to moving to a different town.

 

[Scaff]

On the flipside, It could also also be the easiest way by a mile for a Brit to become a European citizen again. I've a strong desire to leave this country, but realistically, it's too big of a step for me to take, to move to any of the continental EU nations that interest me... Scotland on the other hand... it's just up the road, it's not really any different to moving to a different town.

My wife is half-Scottish, so we have an in if it does happen and the remaining UK gets worse.

 

[Liquid]

Scotland has twice voted to remain in a union

One of those directly influenced the other. A major talking point of the 2014 No campaign was Scotland's continued membership of the European Union; that was, apparently, only guaranteed by remaining a part of the UK. The result of Brexit has changed that platform completely and is significant reason why a new referendum is justified. Continued EU membership wasn't strictly promised but the arguments of 2014 are no longer valid. The political landscape has changed enough since then.

 

[XJ40]

Great.
More division.
More arguments about whose sums are correct.
More campaigning about how rich we would be.

The only winner in this is those who sell face paint.

And Facebook.

 

[Daz555]

There is also a parliamentary bill that sets out that, for all future constitutional referenda:

• Turnout must be 55%
• A supermajority of 60% is required for any referendum to pass

Never mind the obvious 52-48 Brexit farce, pasting over a crooked vote to seal in our fates, the most crucial part to this bill is:

- 2/3rds of all MPs must approve the referendum before it is held

Number of MPs: 650
2/3rds of 650: 429
Number of English MPs: 533

You literally cannot change anything constitutionally without England's permission.

This doesn't just affect a second Scottish independence referendum. This leaves Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland unable to set their own destiny without England's approval. It leaves all of us unable to address the imbalance of the so-called "union". It never has been a union of equals and this only spells it out further.

And among this constitutional mess we have England as the only member nation with no devolved parliament or powers to self govern.

My gut feeling right now is that Scotland will vote to leave and the Union will break up around 5 years later.

The ramifications will be staggering however. It will likely be economically crushing for millions and will make Brexit look like child's play. Just the complexities of the nuclear weapons alone and the impact to NATO and the defence of the North Atlantic are staggering. It is possible that the UK will not be able to maintain a nuclear deterrent and NATO loses one of it's 3 nuclear powers permanently.

Crazy that the self determination of one small nation could have such potentially global ramifications.

 

[MatskiMonk]

One of those directly influenced the other. A major talking point of the 2014 No campaign was Scotland's continued membership of the European Union; that was, apparently, only guaranteed by remaining a part of the UK. The result of Brexit has changed that platform completely and is significant reason why a new referendum is justified. Continued EU membership wasn't strictly promised but the arguments of 2014 are no longer valid. The political landscape has changed enough since then.

That's why I think if Sturgeon wants to be successful, she has to be able to campaign on solid EU membership. Leaving the UK without a framework for part of a bigger union agreed doesn't tally with most Scots voting to be part of something bigger on two occasions. I know the EU probably wouldn't make it too hard for Scotland, but at the same time, there will be hurdles that will need to be negotiated, that are unlikely to be addressed until Scotland is independent. If the EU are saying 'no promises' during the campaign, I think that would be a massive blow for the SNP.

I suppose some die-hard nationalists might also not want to substitute the British government with the European parliament.

My wife is half-Scottish, so we have an in if it does happen and the remaining UK gets worse.

I can't help but think Scotland would welcome a lot of the pro-EU demographic from the UK with open arms.

 

[Daz555]

I suppose some die-hard nationalists might also not want to substitute the British government with the European parliament.

About a 3rd of SNP voters also voted for Brexit.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's why I think if Sturgeon wants to be successful, she has to be able to campaign on solid EU membership

Agreed, but she can't and she won't. What she will do, however, is do everything in her power to make it sound like it is going to happen, along the lines of "it's the will of the people", "it's inevitable that...", "the EU will welcome us with open arms..." etc. etc., but probably fail to mention small details like not even being able to apply for EU membership until Scotland is fully independent, what the likely terms are (and that Scotland will, in effect, have no say on that, only whether to accept or reject them), the difficulty of negotiating new terms with the UK with the backdrop of our own application to join the EU (i.e. Scotland and the UK could agree a trade deal that kept the border open etc., but only until Scotland joined the EU, at which point Scotland's international trade and border policies would be controlled by the EU and not Holyrood), accepting the Euro etc. etc. Much like the first referendum, I expect alot of "that goes without saying", even when it really doesn't.

About a 3rd of SNP voters also voted for Brexit.

A logically consistent position.

Of the four options for Scotland regarding UK and EU membership, only two really make sense to me: IN both or OUT both. The other two options (IN one but OUT the other) appear to directly conflict in terms of sovereignty/independence.

I found a breakdown of votes cast by people who voted in both the 2014 Scottish independence and 2016 EU referendums:

1. IN both (No/Remain) - 34 %
2. OUT UK/IN EU (Yes/Remain) - 28 %
3. IN UK/OUT EU (No/Leave) - 22 %
4. OUT both (Yes/Leave) - 16 %

Source: https://oxford.universitypressschol...98800583.001.0001/oso-9780198800583-chapter-8

I was in pot 1... pot 2 I would say are typical SNP voters; pot 3 are mainly Brexiteers and British nationalists; and pot 4 are staunch Scottish nationalists who consider EU membership to be as bad or worse than London rule.

Since 2016, Scotland has gone from 1 to 3, but is increasingly likely to end up being either 2 or 4. Indeed, option 2 is now only possible after option 4, so if and when Scotland ever becomes and EU member state, it will have gone from 1 to 3 to 4 to 2. The BIG question is, how long will it take to get from 3 to 4, and then from 4 to 2? And what happens if we get stuck in option 4 permanently or for much longer than planned. And how can it be that Scotland faces the very real possibility of ending up outside both the UK and the EU when this is a position that only 1 in 7 people wanted??

 

[Biggles]

Since 2016, Scotland has gone from 1 to 3, but is increasingly likely to end up being either 2 or 4. Indeed, option 2 is now only possible after option 4, so if and when Scotland ever becomes and EU member state, it will have gone from 1 to 3 to 4 to 2. The BIG question is, how long will it take to get from 3 to 4, and then from 4 to 2? And what happens if we get stuck in option 4 permanently or for much longer than planned. And how can it be that Scotland faces the very real possibility of ending up outside both the UK and the EU when this is a position that only 1 in 7 people wanted??

🤔 😵‍💫

 

[Touring Mars]

The Scottish Government has lost its legal case to hold a legally-binding independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government:

Independence referendum: Scottish government loses indyref2 court case

The Supreme Court rules that an independence referendum cannot be held without UK government's consent.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Supreme Court has ruled that the UK Government's consent is required for the Scottish Government to hold an independence referendum, and given that the UK Government already granted that consent for a referendum that was held in 2014, it is extremely unlikely that the UK Government will give consent for another referendum, which the SNP were planning to hold next year.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is spitting chips as I type, and I expect there will be some serious protests organised in the coming weeks and months. This, of course, does leave open the distinct possibility that the SNP will press ahead with a referendum anyway, or (as Sturgeon appears to be suggesting) may use the next Scottish parliamentary election as a 'de facto' referendum - though that prospect is already being questioned.

 

[coyb20]

The Scottish Government has lost its legal case to hold a legally-binding independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government:

Independence referendum: Scottish government loses indyref2 court case

The Supreme Court rules that an independence referendum cannot be held without UK government's consent.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Supreme Court has ruled that the UK Government's consent is required for the Scottish Government to hold an independence referendum, and given that the UK Government already granted that consent for a referendum that was held in 2014, it is extremely unlikely that the UK Government will give consent for another referendum, which the SNP were planning to hold next year.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is spitting chips as I type, and I expect there will be some serious protests organised in the coming weeks and months. This, of course, does leave open the distinct possibility that the SNP will press ahead with a referendum anyway, or (as Sturgeon appears to be suggesting) may use the next Scottish parliamentary election as a 'de facto' referendum - though that prospect is already being questioned.

I might be an SNP supporter but this whole second referendum is a farce. The people have voted already and they voted ‘No’. Its almost like Sturgeon in bullying the country into saying yes. If she had her way, we would be voting every year until she finally got the majority she wanted. Whats worse, shes has the audacity To say Scotland are bding controlled and manipulated by Westminster, but wants to be controlled in the same way by Brussels. Im against Brexit but what she is saying is complete filth and an embarrasment. If she has any humility, she will resign

 

[Jimlaad43]

Catalonia pushed ahead with a referendum and declared independence in 2017.

It ended with them all arrested and devolved powers being removed. Nicola needs to be careful because she could cause more damage to her cause than required.


Scotland's problem for the last couple of decades is that the SNP has too much support. I'm not saying that as in "I hate the SNP and people who vote for them are wrong" (that is my stance, but not for this point), but as in they get a lot of votes. It's rarely over 50% in any region, but it's enough to overcome the split between everyone else voting Labour or Conservative.

What this has meant is a massive disconnect between Scotland and Westminster. There just aren't any Scottish MPs in the leading parties, and even in the dire need of a coalition - none of the big parties will ever pair up with Salmond or Sturgeon. The SNP basically become a nibbling bunch of moaning opposition thinking they have the voice of the nation, but instead are still a minority peeling votes away from the Labour or Conservative choice that dominates the much more populous England which naturally will have a larger say in the First-Past-the-Post system we are stuck with.

If Scotland wants a say in the next General Election, people need to choose between Labour or Conservatives because its pretty much going to be that choice next election. The Tories are going to have too much support from Middle-Class areas of England for Labour to usurp them without a few flips to Labour from SNP constituencies.

Scotland is already overrepresented in Westminster by population of constituencies, so use that might for good, not a single-goal party that shoots itself in the foot for existing.

The SNP is much better served in being votes for as MSPs, rather than MPs. They had their chance a few elections ago when they pretty much took all of Scotland. If it failed then, how is fewer seats going to get more out of the situation?

 

[Sprite]

Personally I think it’s a shame the Scottish People don’t get a second chance at a vote. Not because I want rid of the Scott’s, but more the fact they could show the absolute shower in the UK, how to get back to good terms with if not part of the EU again.

On the other hand, as Coyb20 pointed out, the people already voted no and this keep trying until you get your own way is not proper politics in my humble opinion.

 

[coyb20]

If Scotland wants a say in the next General Election, people need to choose between Labour or Conservatives because its pretty much going to be that choice next election. The Tories are going to have too much support from Middle-Class areas of England for Labour to usurp them without a few flips to Labour from SNP constituencies.

Scotland is already overrepresented in Westminster by population of constituencies, so use that might for good, not a single-goal party that shoots itself in the foot for existing.

The SNP is much better served in being votes for as MSPs, rather than MPs. They had their chance a few elections ago when they pretty much took all of Scotland. If it failed then, how is fewer seats going to get more out of the situation?

Agreed with this. Thats the thing that really annoys me about Plaid Cymru and DUP, what’s the point in them sitting in Parliament if its literally impossible for them to get a majority. UK Parliament should maybe have one representative for parties that are exclusive to one country and the rest should be held by Tories, Lib Dems, Labour etc.

 

[Liquid]

On the other hand, as Coyb20 pointed out, the people already voted no and this keep trying until you get your own way is not proper politics in my humble opinion.

EU membership was a cruicial keystone in the 2014 No argument. Brexit changed everything. Everything. The 2014 referendum was done in a political world so far removed from now that even though not much chronological time has passed, the political time has. It's very much a new vote in a new atmosphere and not quite the "keep voting until you get what you want" that some would have you believe.

 

[Touring Mars]

I am not an independence or SNP supporter, but I do see the rationale behind a new referendum, for the reasons that @Liquid has just said.

Brexit absolutely makes the case for a second referendum - though, ironically, the consequences of Brexit also make a compelling case to reject Scottish independence.

Just as the UK cannot change the inconvenient fact that the EU is (and very likely always will be) the UK's largest trading partner and nearest neighbours, Scotland cannot change the fact that trade (and plenty more besides) with the rest of the UK is absolutely vital. Brexit has made everything between the UK and the EU much harder (and it will get even harder as time goes on) and it is already backfiring. Scottish independence risks making virtually the same mistake, with the caveat that it would at least allow Scotland to re-apply to the EU... but even that is fraught with difficulty.

While the majority (62%) of Scots voted against Brexit, it is not clear that a similar majority would vote to rejoin the EU for the simple reason that the terms of Scotland's membership of the EU will be very different to those that Scotland previously enjoyed as part of the UK's membership of the EU, which (ironically) was very much a cherry-picked deal that gave the UK pretty much everything it wanted - only for Brexiteers to throw it all away.

An independent Scotland would no doubt be warmly welcomed into the EU - but when it comes to deciding on what terms Scotland may join, the cards are stacked in the favour of the EU and its member states. And if it turns out that the Scottish electorate reject those terms (which is a distinct possibility) further down the line, then Scotland would find itself out of the UK and out of the EU. Ironically, rejecting EU membership would only weaken Scotland's hand even further, to the point where Scotland would likely end up having very little choice but to apply for member and accept whatever terms the EU decided, regardless of what the Scottish people may want, and that is a recipe for discontent and unrest.

Alas, I don't think any of this would be on the table had the Leave side not won the Brexit referendum, but since they did, Scotland is left with only bad options IMO.

 

[MatskiMonk]

She want's a legally binding one. The Brexit vote wasn't even legally binding.

Scotland should hold an advisory referendum - if it doesn't get support then take the issue off the table. If it does get support, this 'once in a generation' talk is irrelevant.

 

[XJ40]

Some of my friends saw this result as a win as they reckon it will stir the undecided to get the blue face paint out via the feelings of "being controlled".

We had a vote, yes things have changed a lot since but the UK government, such as it is, won't allow a 2nd referendum. I wish that the SNP would just focus on the country. If they make a good job of things then who knows?

I am on the fence still about the whole thing.

 

[Touring Mars]

She want's a legally binding one. The Brexit vote wasn't even legally binding.

Scotland should hold an advisory referendum - if it doesn't get support then take the issue off the table. If it does get support, this 'once in a generation' talk is irrelevant.

I believe that even a "legal" referendum (as in the 2014 referendum) is technically only 'advisory' in any case, so I probably spoke out of turn with the phrase 'legally binding'. But the question is whether an "illegal" referendum could even be considered as 'advisory'.

 

[Famine]

I believe that even a "legal" referendum (as in the 2014 referendum) is technically only 'advisory' in any case, so I probably spoke out of turn with the phrase 'legally binding'. But the question is whether an "illegal" referendum could even be considered as 'advisory'.

*Vladimir Putin disliked this

 

[Imari]

On the other hand, as Coyb20 pointed out, the people already voted no and this keep trying until you get your own way is not proper politics in my humble opinion.

Times change, people change and constituencies change. Having an election every few years is not considered "keep trying until you get your own way".

There's such a thing as overdoing it, but if there was a referendum once every ten years to reaffirm commitment to a major political union then that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. Even if it was, I'd imagine the debate around what was reasonable would only be around how often such referendums should be held, not whether they should be held at all. One referendum to decide something for all time seems a bit insane.

 

[Biggles]

There are many parallels to the situation in Canada. There have been two referenda on Quebec separation (which the separatists prefer to call "sovereignty association"), in 1980 and 1995. Quebec likes to think of itself a separate nation, with a distinct culture, history and language from the rest of Canada. Also, like Scotland, Quebec nurtures bitter historical grievances from the past.

The vote in 1980 was 60% to 40% to "remain". In 1995 a second referendum resulted in a vote of only 1% in favour of "remain". The Quebec separatist politician, René Lévesque, blamed the narrow loss on "big money and the ethnic vote", by which he meant business and financial interests opposed to the disruption posed by separation, and non-francophone Quebecers - ie. recent immigrants preferring to remain a part of Canada.

Like in Scotland, Francophone Quebecers tend to strongly support a "nationalist" federal party - the Bloc Quebecois - which is generally more left leaning than the other Canadian federal parties. The Quebec population represents a larger percentage of the total Canadian population (22%) than does Scotland within the UK, giving the Bloc Quebec more significant political power than the SNP wields in the UK. The Quebec vote has played a crucial role at times over the last 40 + years in the shifting balance of power in Canada at the federal level.

There is no Brexit-like issue at stake in Canada and separatist demographics have weakened as an extremely low birth rate in Quebec has led to the necessity of high rates of immigration & diminishing numbers of "native" Francophones. What Quebec DOES have is an official provincial policy to insist on the primacy of the French language within Quebec, the French language being seen as the repository of French culture and "distinctness" in Canada and North America. That's the crucial question: how distinct from England IS Scotland actually? To maintain its identity Quebec needs to be distinct not just from English Canada, but also from its giant neighbour to the south. If Scotland separated from England and became an independent country in a multi-lingual, multi-cultural European economic bloc, would that not potentially enable it to become more distinct from England - more "Scottish"? Do people living in Scotland really want to be more Scottish?

 

[Scaff]

Thats the thing that really annoys me about Plaid Cymru and DUP, what’s the point in them sitting in Parliament if its literally impossible for them to get a majority.

To represent the constituents of the seat that voted for them in the forum that still has the biggest single influence over the entire country!

It's mind-blowingly undemocratic to suggest taking that representation away from them, and not a solution to the real problem, which is the First-Past-the-Post electoral system still being used in the UK.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I believe that even a "legal" referendum (as in the 2014 referendum) is technically only 'advisory' in any case, so I probably spoke out of turn with the phrase 'legally binding'. But the question is whether an "illegal" referendum could even be considered as 'advisory'.

Ah, perhaps it's just terminology. In my response I was assuming that she's after a bill that contains a stipulation that the result is signed into law (e.g. the Alternative Vote referendum), rather than a legal, but not automatically enforced (e.g. EU membership bill).

In either case, I can't help but think the tighter Westminster tries to keep the leash, the more support the SNP might end up getting, at least until we get a party in Government that aren't a bunch of **** stains.

I'll reiterate, I'm not pro-Scottish independence, but given that the basis for the Brexit referendum was sovereignty and self determination, and these appeared to be a big deal, how can we not only enforce that change on Scotland (who didn't want it), but deny them the same opportunity.


_


Also...

FPTP needs to end.

 

[XJ40]

This leadership contest is turning into something resembling the Tory one(s), not out and out backstabbing, but rather letting the candidates ruin their own chances by their views on other subjects.

I wish Sturgeon had stayed on, although she has been treading water recently.

Politics is mirroring football management at the moment. One bad week and your out. (I dont follow football save for the world cup, but workmates seem to be constantly berating their managers. A mate also said that the longest serving SPL manager is 3 years and 2 months, so a quick turnaround seems the norm).

I hope Scotland doesn't have a revolving door when it comes to the 1st minister, as stability has been the norm up here for a good while.