Scottish independence

pixelburp

First Up wrote: »

Fair point but I don't think that has fully run its course yet.

What do you expect to happen? Because to me, the nature of Brexit indicates that were Scotland to try and intervene in some quantifiable capacity, I'd be confident the "tail wagging the dog" aspect of Brexit hysteria would fully assert itself. Brexit, at its heart, feels like a gasping clutch at relevance from England - and specifically England alone. When the chips are down, the UK has always shown itself as London First, and don't see Brexit or a forceful Scottish narrative changing this.

In fact, it's arguable Scottish independence might finally yield what the English don't realise they want and have always wanted: England as its own sovereign entity, Westminster a body for England and it alone.

Francie Barrett

Surely it's only a matter of time until Scotland leaves the Union?

Yes backing by age:

16-24: 84%
25-34: 75%
35-44: 57%
45-54: 52%
55-64: 45%
65+: 34%

Source: Survation, 2-7 September 2020

Boris Johnson has been a gift to the independence movement. I can see it in my (admittedly very small) social circle of acquaintances who voted against independence in 2014. The likes of Gordon Brown and David Cameron were very much establishment, one nation Tories who represented stability and the status quo. Boris Johnson and Brexit are at the other end of the spectrum and make for uncomfortable bed-fellows to many Scottish unionists.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the next half dozen or so of opinion polls. If the support for Independence is sustained, we're only going to see greater pressure for indyref2.

Water John

Te question is, will the 16-24 all come out and vote? Bernie Sanders perished on that hill in the US primaries.

First Up

pixelburp wrote:

In fact, it's arguable Scottish independence might finally yield what the English don't realise they want and have always wanted: England as its own sovereign entity, Westminster a body for England and it alone.

That is a real possibility but I don't think it would be the ideal outcome for Scotland, the UK or for Ireland.

Water John

A similar argument was often used about the colonies. That they were better off under UK rule.

First Up

Water John wrote:

A similar argument was often used about the colonies. That they were better off under UK rule.

You see similarities between distant colonies and a contiguous land mass sharing political, economic and legislative systems?

I don't.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

You see similarities between distant colonies and a contiguous land mass sharing political, economic and legislative systems?

I don't.

We are a contiguous land mass (with part of he UK) that used to share political, economic and legislative systems - well sort of - but that was a century ago. We are now a very distant colony - well in time anyway.

The Scottish legal system is different from English law.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

We are a contiguous land mass (with part of he UK) that used to share political, economic and legislative systems - well sort of - but that was a century ago. We are now a very distant colony - well in time anyway.

I think we are talking about different things. In just about everything that matters, Scotland is fully integrated with the rest of Britain. Disentangling itself after centuries from everything except its physical location will be hugely disruptive and will weaken all parties. Distant (and proximate) colonies had their issues but nothing comparable.

Sam Russell wrote:

The Scottish legal system is different from English law.

Not in anything that matters.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

I think we are talking about different things. In just about everything that matters, Scotland is fully integrated with the rest of Britain. Disentangling itself after centuries from everything except its physical location will be hugely disruptive and will weaken all parties. Distant (and proximate) colonies had their issues but nothing comparable.



Not in anything that matters.

So was Ireland fully integrated with the rest of the Empire -except we frequently showed that we wished not to be, and the British Gov responded with lethal force - time after time.

For Scotland to disentangle itself will not be much worse than Brexit will be for the UK after less than fifty years of membership of the EU. The argument for leaving the Union apply just as much, if not more, to Scotland as to the UK*.

It is English nationalism that drives and drove Brexit, and it should be Scottish nationalism that drives the call for independence, not pounds and pence.

The belief that Scotland deserves to drive its own future, and be responsible for it - that must be centre to its future.

*I do not accept that there was any valid argument for Brexit.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

So was Ireland fully integrated with the rest of the Empire -except we frequently showed that we wished not to be, and the British Gov responded with lethal force - time after time.

Sam Russell wrote:

For Scotland to disentangle itself will not be much worse than Brexit will be for the UK after less than fifty years of membership of the EU. The argument for leaving the Union apply just as much, if not more, to Scotland as to the UK*.

Don't delude yourself. It will be vastly worse. Centuries as effectively the same country compared to 50 years in what the UK never saw as more than a common market.

Sam Russell wrote:

It is English nationalism that drives and drove Brexit, and it should be Scottish nationalism that drives the call for independence, not pounds and pence.

You sound like a Brexiteer there.

Sam Russell wrote:

The belief that Scotland deserves to drive its own future, and be responsible for it - that must be centre to its future.

It doesn't need to turn itself upside down to achieve it.

Sam Russell wrote:

*I do not accept that there was any valid argument for Brexit.

Neither do I and its ironic that you draw on the same jargon as those clamouring for it.

Brexit is a disaster for Scotland and I fully understand and sympathise with the outrage But breaking up the UK is a nuclear option that will cause huge disruption, and with no certainty about the eventual result. It will drive England even deeper into a nationalist bunker and cause huge problems for Irish business that use the UK as a land bridge.

That's why I would much prefer to see Scotland lead a chastened and politically reformed UK back into the EU as soon as possible.

A Dub in Glasgo

First real analysis of what the IMB will do for devolution - silence from the print and TV media in Scotland

https://twitter.com/mdouganlpool/status/1306253657302806530

https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1306189653171724290

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

Don't delude yourself. It will be vastly worse. Centuries as effectively the same country compared to 50 years in what the UK never saw as more than a common market.

Very few of those that live in Scotland remember those centuries. I would think most are just as aware of the EU as of the Act of Union.

You sound like a Brexiteer there.

I can assure you I am no Brexiteer.

Brexit is a disaster for Scotland and I fully understand and sympathise with the outrage But breaking up the UK is a nuclear option that will cause huge disruption, and with no certainty about the eventual result. It will drive England even deeper into a nationalist bunker and cause huge problems for Irish business that use the UK as a land bridge.

That's why I would much prefer to see Scotland lead a chastened and politically reformed UK back into the EU as soon as possible.

That is a different point of view. I think England has numerical advantage that Scotland cannot overcome. The promises that Cameron made if they voted Remain were never delivered and their independence has been eroded ever since.

They cannot trust English politicians - particularly the Tory version, as we have found out.

briany

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't see any real evidence of moderation at the present time, let alone in the future. Were that true then all the worse twists of Brexit would have been avoided thanks to Scottish temperance. Rather, English nationailsm seems to have taken over Westminster regardless how many sober speeches have been given by SNP MPs. The horse has arguably bolted and Scotland needs to decide where its future lies; with an increasingly histrionic London, or charting its own, admittedly more unknown future.

I think the correct way to have drawn up the Brexit referendum would have been with a super majority. A simple majority throughout the UK, plus a majority in at least 3/4 constituent countries. This would have pitted leaving the EU vs. maintaining the integrity of the UK - a rather uncomfortable question for patriotic Brexiteers and forcing a more pragmatic view of the whole issue, or at least admitting the problems with the question of leaving the EU in the first place for a state such as the UK.

And at the time, back when the Tory party had not yet been purged of its moderate elements, this could have actually had traction in the HoC.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

Very few of those that live in Scotland remember those centuries. I would think most are just as aware of the EU as of the Act of Union.

Its not about memory. Those centuries have have made the Scottish border with England almost invisible. People, trade, money, property ownership, employment are seamless. Stick rules, restrictions and limits into that and watch what happens.

Sam Russell wrote:

I can assure you I am no Brexiteer.

Then stop repeating their nationalist slogans.

Sam Russell wrote:

That is a different point of view. I think England has numerical advantage that Scotland cannot overcome. The promises that Cameron made if they voted Remain were never delivered and their independence has been eroded ever since.

They cannot trust English politicians - particularly the Tory version, as we have found out.

Yes. a parcel of rogues and all that. Still better to work within the system than walk out of it. It shouldn't be hard to outsmart them, judging by their antics.

4068ac1elhodqr

Might be slightly relevant:
Today Barbados announced it wanted to leave its "colonial past behind" and quit the commonwealth, and reject the queeny as the head of state and so on.
Will this set a trend for others to follow?

A speech written by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley stated: "The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind.
"Barbadians want a Barbadian head of state.”

Not sure if MelGibson has Scottish lineage, but they should make him the Pres of New Alba, he was very good in that movie Braveheart.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

Its not about memory. Those centuries have have made the Scottish border with England almost invisible. People, trade, money, property ownership, employment are seamless. Stick rules, restrictions and limits into that and watch what happens.


Then stop repeating their nationalist slogans.


Yes. a parcel of rogues and all that. Still better to work within the system than walk out of it. It shouldn't be hard to outsmart them, judging by their antics.

You really really really don't like the idea of an independent Scotland do you?

A Dub in Glasgo

More rubbish from Johnson at todays committee grilling. Angus MacNeil questioned Johnson about a section 30 order and Johnson laughably stuck to the pathetic 'once in a generation' defence

https://twitter.com/kwr66/status/1306284651531698177


MacNeil should have been more prepared and had a copy of the Sunday Express in December where the man sitting in front of him stated that the General Election was once in a generation

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1214450/boris-johnson-letter-general-election-2019-tory-party-labour-jeremy-corbyn-latest

At the end, Johnson clearly does not know what the Edinburgh Agreement was and what it contained

Both Salmond and Sturgeon did use the phrase 'once in a generation' to galvanise support during the Independence campaign. MacNeill could have told Johnston the a political generation is 7 years as stated in UK law with respect to a referendum in NI

Harvey Quick Typo

Harvey Quick Typo wrote: »

Might be slightly relevant:
Today Barbados announced it wanted to leave its "colonial past behind" and quit the commonwealth, and reject the queeny as the head of state and so on.
Will this set a trend for others to follow?

A speech written by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley stated: "The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind.
"Barbadians want a Barbadian head of state.”

Not sure if MelGibson has Scottish lineage, but they should make him the Pres of New Alba, he was very good in that movie Braveheart.

Removing the monarch as head of state is the next logical step in full sovereignty. I didn’t see anything in any of the news reports about leaving the commonwealth though.

Fr Tod Umptious

Any decoupling of Scotland from rUK will put the WA and the Irish border question in the ha'penny place.

400 off years of united kingdoms, 300 years of the Act of Union.

A lot to sort out there.

But hey the Scottish nationalists tell the public it will be no problem, just like the Leavers told the public the same

cameramonkey

First Up wrote: »

Yes. a parcel of rogues and all that. Still better to work within the system than walk out of it. It shouldn't be hard to outsmart them, judging by their antics.

If you outsmart them then they just change the rules after all it is their game not Scotland's or Ireland's or indeed Europe's.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

You see similarities between distant colonies and a contiguous land mass sharing political, economic and legislative systems?

I don't.

We did. We're not quite as contiguous with England as Scotland is, but we share much more by way of political, economic and legislative systems than Scotland does.

And, if we did, its entirely possible that the Scots could too. And, if they do, then the fact that you don't is neither her nor there, is it?

Peregrinus

Harvey Quick Typo wrote: »

Might be slightly relevant:
Today Barbados announced it wanted to leave its "colonial past behind" and quit the commonwealth, and reject the queeny as the head of state and so on.
Will this set a trend for others to follow?

A speech written by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley stated: "The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind.
"Barbadians want a Barbadian head of state.”

Aegir wrote: »

Removing the monarch as head of state is the next logical step in full sovereignty.

It's the normal progression. There are more countries which became independent with the British monarch as their monarch and later dumped the monarchy than there are which became independent with the British monarch as their monarch and still retain the monarchy. Betty is ex-Queen of more countries than she is Queen of.

Harvey Quick Typo wrote: »

I didn’t see anything in any of the news reports about leaving the commonwealth though.

No, there wouldn't be. Most of the countries in the Commonwealth are republics, and becoming a republic is not, in itself, a reason for leaving the Commonwealth.

The truth is that Commonwealth membership is of little significance, one way or another. It's an international organisation looking for a role. The original plan was that it would have a military significance - the UK hoped to continue to be able to call on the resources of the Indian Army - and indeed the "no republics" rule was dropped precisely because India wanted to be a republic and, for the reason just stated, the UK was keen to keep them in the Commonwealth. But the military thing never really worked; the Indians had zero interest in it, and in any event the UK oriented itself towards NATO instead. Then for a while the UK toyed with trying to develop the Commonwealth as a trade/economic bloc, as a counterweight to the EU, but the case for that was never very strong so they went with EFTA instead. And since then the Commonwealth hasn't been about much beyond cultural exchange and a four-yearly sporting carnival where white folks can do quite well.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I completely understand the emotional argument for Scottish independence, especially in the face of extreme Brexiteers and Toryism.

However rational analysis shows that Scotland is better off in the UK; the UK is better off with Scotland moderating English nationalism and Ireland would be better off dealing with a seamless and functional UK than with a fragmented island next door and on our route to the continent.

All of this may be true, but you could have said very similar things about Ireland a hundred years ago - Ireland was a net recipient of UK tax funds and there was a good case for saying independence would be economically costs (as in fact it was, for a long time). Plus Westminster could pay a moderating role between nationalist and unionist tendencies in Ireland so long as Ireland remained within the UK, etc, etc.

Arguments about independence are rarely clinched by economic concerns, either way.

Hamsterchops

So if Scotland voted to leave the UK what difference would it make to the average person in Scotland?
Would the population of England care if Scotland walked away?

How would a divorce impact on Northern Ireland and it's place within the UK? and finally, how would we in Ireland be affected with a brand new dynamic fledgling State on our doorstep?

.... in full competition with us for jobs and industry/agri-food/commerce?

Imagine the push for Scottish goods in America as they fight/compete tooth & nail with us to make their mark, and to sell their Scottish brands.

Scotland would be free, and England would be free, win win certainly for England because of its size and power, but Scotland would have to hit the ground running, get straight into the EU, ask to use the Euro and pray that their economy would take off ASAP .....

And no hard border with England either.

fash

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So if Scotland voted to leave the UK what difference would it make to the average person in Scotland?

Quite a lot - they can rejoin the EU.
Plus there's all that taking back control from corrupt unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in Westminster and sovereignty etc.

Would the population of England care if Scotland walked away?

Likely not the English population.No doubt the rUK government would engage in dirty tricks - and use it to feed the culture war narrative.

[/quote]
How would a divorce impact on Northern Ireland and it's place within the UK?
[/quote] It would strongly strengthen the case for reunification - the UK would be finished and unionists would have a significant affinity to a non UK country.

and finally, how would we in Ireland be affected with a brand new dynamic fledgling State on our doorstep?
.... in full competition with us for jobs and industry/agri-food/commerce?

from an Irish perspective, is having the UK in the EU a good thing or a bad thing? Assuming you think Brexit isn't great from an Irish perspective,. why are you scared about Scotland being in the EU?

Imagine the push for Scottish goods in America as they fight/compete tooth & nail with us to make their mark, and to sell their Scottish brands.

Sounds almost like things were when the UK was in the EU - but without England. Scary indeed.

Peregrinus

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So if Scotland voted to leave the UK what difference would it make to the average person in Scotland?

Depends on the terms of leaving. Could have a signficant impact on Scotland, which of course would affect “the average person in Scotland”.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Would the population of England care if Scotland walked away?

Possibly not. But, if they did, I doubt that would bother the Scots.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

How would a divorce impact on Northern Ireland and it's place within the UK?

Again, depends on the terms of leaving. But it must put pressure on the union with NI, cause the English to reconsider whether they want it, and make the whole notion of NI leaving the union look a lot more feasible in the real world than it has in the past.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

and finally, how would we in Ireland be affected with a brand new dynamic fledgling State on our doorstep?

.... in full competition with us for jobs and industry/agri-food/commerce?

Imagine the push for Scottish goods in America as they fight/compete tooth & nail with us to make their mark, and to sell their Scottish brands.

Scots manufacturers can do that already, and both the Scottish government and the UK government can promote Scottish goods, solicit investment in Scotland, etc, etc. This is competition we already face.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Scotland would be free, and England would be free, win win certainly for England because of its size and power, but Scotland would have to hit the ground running, get straight into the EU, ask to use the Euro and pray that their economy would take off ASAP .....

I don’t see how its a win-win for England. England gets to dominate the UK, but it already does that. It will just be dominating a UK reduced in population, territory and wealth. I’m not seeing a lot of upside for England there. Plus I think there is going to be some corrosion of national morale that the state the English created and dominated, once the leading power in the world, is falling apart in front of them.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

And no hard border with England either.

Hard to see how there would not be a hard border with England if Scotland joins the EU or the EEA, and the UK persists with hard Brexit. The special accommodations which the EU has agreed in relation to NI are explicitly possible only because of the unique position of NI, and are definitely not on offer to Scotland. Even if the EU were willing to extend them to Scotland, it’s very unlikely the UK would be; as matters stand, they seem to be regretting have agreed them even in relation to NI.

McGiver

briany wrote:

I think the correct way to have drawn up the Brexit referendum would have been with a super majority. A simple majority throughout the UK, plus a majority in at least 3/4 constituent countries. This would have pitted leaving the EU vs. maintaining the integrity of the UK - a rather uncomfortable question for patriotic Brexiteers and forcing a more pragmatic view of the whole issue, or at least admitting the problems with the question of leaving the EU in the first place for a state such as the UK.

Yes but Wales, Scotland and NI are mere attachments to England and don't matter. Westminster would never ever agree to this nor would the English. The population/gdp ratio of England:UK is just too high. It's 80% population wise and probably more GDP wise.

That's why any sort moderation effect of Scotland which has less than 10% UK population is never going to be allowed by the English, and it's a laughable proposition and absolutely unrealistic, especially with the current regime. And I wouldn't disagree with it either, if I was English.
Analogy - Would you be happy if Co Clare was overriding decisions on what happens with the whole Ireland or Dublin?

And the above is also the reason why any sort of devolution or federal arrangement wouldn't work in the UK either unless England was broken down to multiple regions (Cumbria, Cornwall, Anglia, Mercia etc).

England is just too big to merge with others, basically the Union should have never happened, the English were always going to have the upper hand.

McGiver

Peregrinus wrote:

We did. We're not quite as contiguous with England as Scotland is, but we share much more by way of political, economic and legislative systems than Scotland does.

Spot on.

Scottish law is not a pure common law system, it's a mix of civil law (European) and common law (English).
While Northern Irish and Irish legal systems are both common law and very close to the English law. You could call it Anglo-Saxon. While Wales has no legal system of its own (basically annexed territory integrated/assimilated into England).

Politically, Scotland is completely elsewhere than England too.

So sharing the "same land mass" means very little.

Yes, they export 65% to the rUK and are economically integrated, but that's the only argument in this discussion, albeit an important one. Scotland is essentially trapped due to a deep economic integration.

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote:

You really really really don't like the idea of an independent Scotland do you?

I have no problem with the idea of an independent Scotland. That doesn't blind me to the realities that would face an independent Scotland.

First Up

McGiver wrote:

Yes, they export 65% to the rUK and are economically integrated, but that's the only argument in this discussion, albeit an important one. Scotland is essentially trapped due to a deep economic integration.

Not completely trapped, but those advocating it have an obligation to properly assess and plan for the consequences.

I'd have hoped there were lessons to be learned from Brexit. A hazy, populist gut feeling is not a plan, as the UK is finding out.