Scottish independence

McGiver

First Up wrote:

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.

Unlike Brexidiots, the SNP had actually wrote a paper on the economic side of Scottish independence. And they have been since 2014. You can be sure that if there is indyref2 there is going to be a solid case study on each aspect of the independence.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

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.

To be fair, in advance of the last Indyref, the Scottish government did a great deal of preparatory work and published a lengthy white paper outlining the issues that would face Scotland, the policy positions they would take on them, the indepence terms they would seek to agree with Westminster, and annexing a draft interim constitution for an independent Scotland, plus a proposal for an elected constitutional convention to debate and prepare a permanent constitution. it was the complete opposite of the fact-free plan-free slogan-dominated Leave campaigns in the Brexit referendum.

I think it's reasonable to expect that, if there is to be a further Indyref, a simlar degree of preparatory work will be undertaken.

listermint

McGiver wrote: »

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.

Your analogy breaks down when one thinks for a second.

Hey wait , what. Clare isn't a country.

First Up

McGiver wrote:

Unlike Brexidiots, the SNP had actually wrote a paper on the economic side of Scottish independence. And they have been since 2014. You can be sure that if there is indyref2 there is going to be a solid case study on each aspect of the independence.

Yes, Sturgeon has been working to get some SNP heads out of the clouds and on to the planning table.

But there is a way to go. Independence is an understandable reaction to the shambles of Brexit and Boris but just like Brexit, leaving is not a plan.

fash

McGiver wrote: »

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..

Common law is derived from Norman law actually

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Common law is derived from Norman law actually

Mmm, not so much. It was established in England under the Norman monarchy, but much of it was a consolidation and redaction of existing rules and practices of customary law which predated the Roman conquest. Essentially what the Norman kings did was try to have uniform rules applied in all the King's courts, rather that the plethora of local rules and local variations that had prevailed up to that point. (Common law is so called because it is common to all the king's courts.) But they didn't import the uniform rules from Normandy, they mostly built them up from aspects of native English law that were already in place.

Fr Tod Umptious

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair, in advance of the last Indyref, the Scottish government did a great deal of preparatory work and published a lengthy white paper outlining the issues that would face Scotland, the policy positions they would take on them, the indepence terms they would seek to agree with Westminster, and annexing a draft interim constitution for an independent Scotland, plus a proposal for an elected constitutional convention to debate and prepare a permanent constitution. it was the complete opposite of the fact-free plan-free slogan-dominated Leave campaigns in the Brexit referendum.

I think it's reasonable to expect that, if there is to be a further Indyref, a simlar degree of preparatory work will be undertaken.

Maybe that's why it did not pass.

Peregrinus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Maybe that's why it did not pass.

Maybe. But if it had passed, there would have been a clear mandate to pursue a specific, concrete and detailed plan which - as current events illustrate all too vividly - is something you badly need out of a referendum.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

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.

The world is a lot different now to a hundred years ago.

Global economic growth is founded on convergence; nationalism is founded on divergence. The two are in conflict, unless something visionary like the EU is created to enable them co-exist.

The last Scottish indyref failed because people preferred the convergence of the UK. Another referendum would still face that choice. I think Scotland would be better advised to hold on to one until it has prepared properly for the other.

Peregrinus wrote:

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

Scotland being dragged out of the EU has changed the economic argument and is the only reason independence is back on the table.

listermint

First Up wrote: »

The world is a lot different now to a hundred years ago.

Global economic growth is founded on convergence; nationalism is founded on divergence. The two are in conflict, unless something visionary like the EU is created to enable them co-exist.

The last Scottish indyref failed because people preferred the convergence of the UK WITHIN THE EU. Another referendum would still face that choice. I think Scotland would be better advised to hold on to one until it has prepared properly for the other.




Scotland being dragged out of the EU has changed the economic argument and is the only reason independence is back on the table.

I had to update your post because you had to conflicting arguments in it. My corrected version is more accurate and aligns your two conflicting arguments.

First Up

listermint wrote:

I had to update your post because you had to conflicting arguments in it. My corrected version is more accurate and aligns your two conflicting arguments.

Thanks but maybe read my post more carefully before making unnecessary changes.

listermint

First Up wrote: »

Thanks but maybe read my post more carefully before making unnecessary changes.

I read it in full, you argued the last referendum failed because they prefered the protection of the UK, thats utter nonsense and revisionist. They were threatened with loss of EU access.

Hamsterchops

First Up wrote: »

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.

Me too, I've only ever visited Scotland a couple if times and if it departed the UK tomorrow I'm not sure it would make any difference to anybody outside of Scotland, NI or Northern England.

Yes these regions would obviously be affected but then if the Scots want to be independent and back in the EU/Eurozone then so be it, sorted.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The world is a lot different now to a hundred years ago.

Global economic growth is founded on convergence; nationalism is founded on divergence. The two are in conflict, unless something visionary like the EU is created to enable them co-exist.

The last Scottish indyref failed because people preferred the convergence of the UK. Another referendum would still face that choice. I think Scotland would be better advised to hold on to one until it has prepared properly for the other.

I take your point. But Scotland exiting the British union in order to (re)enter the European Union would be an example of convergence, not divergence. They'd be diverging from the lesser union to converge with the greater.

I think you’re absolutely right that the transition would be a painful one (see below) but transitions are mostly painful. Taking the long view, they may still be the right thing to do.

First Up wrote: »

Scotland being dragged out of the EU has changed the economic argument and is the only reason independence is back on the table.

Well, yes. I think Brexit has three relevant implications for Scottish independence.

1. It effectively ends the “mandate” for union conferred by the 2014 referendum, by changing the context to such an extent that arguments which were important in that referendum now have no traction, or even lean in the other direction. So it opens up the case that another referendum would be timely.

2. The disregard and disdain for Scotland’s wishes and interests shown in the interpretation and implementation of the Brexit referendum result has been flagrant, and must reinforce the political case for Scottish independence. Why should Scotland wish to remain in a situation where it can be, and is, treated like this? Plus, if you take the view that Brexit is harmful to the UK (economically or in other ways) and is being implement in a way that increases that harm, if Scotland remains in the UK Scotland is impacted by that harm. Why would you want to be part of a union that is opting to recover its “sick man of Europe” position? So the political case for independence is again strengthened.

3. But the decision to hew to a hard, and even harder, Brexit greatly raises the dislocation and economic impact that will result from independence; it would almost certainly mean a hard border between Scotland and rump UK.

Taking 2 and 3 together, the net result is the Scotland is more unhappy about being in the union, but more chained in by economic factors. Whether this “nets out” to an increase in the independence vote that might tip the balance, or to a maintenance of the unionist majority, remains to be seen. But even if Scotland is kept in the union, this is certainly not a recipe for keeping it happily in the union.

First Up

listermint wrote:

I read it in full, you argued the last referendum failed because they prefered the protection of the UK, thats utter nonsense and revisionist. They were threatened with loss of EU access.

In 2014 being in the UK included EU membership. That's part of the convergence the Scots chose over independence.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Taking 2 and 3 together, the net result is the Scotland is more unhappy about being in the union, but more chained in by economic factors. Whether this “nets out†to an increase in the independence vote that might tip the balance, or to a maintenance of the unionist majority, remains to be seen. But even if Scotland is kept in the union, this is certainly not a recipe for keeping it happily in the union.

There is no happiness associated with Brexit, just varying degrees of unhappiness. Scotland has been shafted and faces hard choices.

That's why I think a better outcome would be keeping the UK together but with changes that would preserve most of what they have as both a UK and EU member.

That would suit Ireland too.

listermint

First Up wrote: »

In 2014 being in the UK included EU membership. That's part of the convergence the Scots chose over independence.

Revisionist.

The scots were threatened with loss of EU access if they went independent. But lost it anyway because of an unscrupulous tory party.

Revising what was said and done after only a few years is not going to work. Most people are still alive....

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

There is no happiness associated with Brexit, just varying degrees of unhappiness. Scotland has been shafted and faces hard choices.

That's why I think a better outcome would be keeping the UK together but with changes that would preserve most of what they have as both a UK and EU member.

That would suit Ireland too.

Well, the transition period has not ended yet and already the UK Gov are making a power grab with the IMB by reducing the powers of devolved assemblies to control many aspects of their mandate.

An example is the minimum cost of alcohol regime in Scotland. That would be unlawful under the bill, but because it is extant, it continues, but any change would be unlawful. There are many examples of this power grab.

Clearly, the Tories would like to reduce the assemblies to less than a county council with little or no powers.

Why would Scottish people be content with this?

A Dub in Glasgo

First Up wrote: »

There is no happiness associated with Brexit, just varying degrees of unhappiness. Scotland has been shafted and faces hard choices.

That's why I think a better outcome would be keeping the UK together but with changes that would preserve most of what they have as both a UK and EU member.

That would suit Ireland too.

The UK has left the EU and in a hard way and now is burning bridges with the EU for a future relationship. It is that future or a future where the people in Scotland can make their own choices because the people in scotland certainly did not choose what is happening now

Many people in Scotland are now coming around to the latter choice. Both choices will involve hardship

First Up

listermint wrote:

The scots were threatened with loss of EU access if they went independent. But lost it anyway because of an unscrupulous tory party.

They were told they would have to re-apply as an independent country.

I'm sure staying in the UK and EU was a strong argument for many Scots, including those who felt the EU was a protection against the worst excesses of an Anglo-centric UK govt.

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Many people in Scotland are now coming around to the latter choice. Both choices will involve hardship

Agree.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

Why would Scottish people be content with this?

All political choices involve some give and take. If you think eroding the power of councils justifies the disruption of leaving the UK, then vote for it.

I think it would be easier to resist the intrusion into the role of councils than to rebuild the entire government and economy but each to his own.

pixelburp

First Up wrote: »

In 2014 being in the UK included EU membership. That's part of the convergence the Scots chose over independence.

I remember the "Better Together" narrative very well and yes, the main thrust of those speaking to No was that leaving the UK would mean leaving the safety net of the EU - and that Scotland would be at the back of the economic queue in an instant. Of course, every utterance along those lines has proven obscene within 2 years of the 2014 result thanks to Brexit; as the very thing Gordon Brown and his ilk warned of to Scots is now happening regardless of their intentions or desires. The new narrative speaks differently, that London politics doesn't give a fig what Scotland thinks, and this is solidifying in majority support for independence.

Independence is always a stab in the dark - be it Scotland, North Macedonia, Catalonia or whoever - there's simply no two ways about it and ultimately becomes as much emotive as it does pragmatic. The yearning for self-determination in the face of an increasingly manic "master" nation is a tonic. And no greater national psyche for pragmatism than the Scottish but there's a compelling rationale that says the longer another referendum takes to happen, the more Scotland becomes dragged down by the inevitable two-hit combo of a probable Hard Brexit & yet another recession brought about by CoVid.

Independence is, to pull a Rumsfeld, a Known Unknown, but if there has been one interesting facet of CoVid it has been to watch Scotland carry itself as a sovereign nation, often ignoring London or actually leading the way in "right decisions" (such as with the school results scandal). There's simply never going to be the "Right time" for independence, as both poverty and wealth bring warnings of potential losses. Brexit however has changed the nature of the game, and the nature of what the UK is. Arguably, the entity is becoming moribund if allowed to fester like this.

As to Ireland, well sure. Who knows, because while an independent Scotland could be an economic rival to ourselves, within the EU they would automatically become an ally by dint of there now being two English speaking, small countries with shared history and culture. It'd be a bit weird if we WEREN'T if not allies, then willing collaborators in shared interests. Short term we might be rivals, but longterm might speak to a different shape.

First Up

pixelburp wrote:

As to Ireland, well sure. Who knows, because while an independent Scotland could be an economic rival to ourselves, within the EU they would automatically become an ally by dint of there now being two English speaking, small countries with shared history and culture. It'd be a bit weird if we WEREN'T if not allies, then willing collaborators in shared interests. Short term we might be rivals, but longterm might speak to a different shape.

Scotland outside the UK would be less of a rival for FDI. They would lose unfettered access to the English market and even if/when back in the EU would have to deal with England's borders and queues to get to continental customers.

But yes. we would align on some stuff and Scotland would get sympathetic support from the EU.

A Dub in Glasgo

Will always remind folk that the Better Together campaign was a pack of lies

https://twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584

Fr Tod Umptious

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Will always remind folk that the Better Together campaign was a pack of lies

https://twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584

Well it's factually true for the time of writing, 2014.

UK were still in the EU.
And independent Scotland would not, initially at least, been a member.

A leave vote in an EU referendum was still two years away.
The EU referendum it's self was not even scheduled, actually it was not even a guarantee to happen as it was contingent on the Conservative Party winning the next election which was scheduled to happen in 2015.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well it's factually true for the time of writing, 2014.

UK were still in the EU.
And independent Scotland would not, initially at least, been a member.

A leave vote in an EU referendum was still two years away.
The EU referendum it's self was not even scheduled, actually it was not even a guarantee to happen as it was contingent on the Conservative Party winning the next election which was scheduled to happen in 2015.

The Better Together campaign was all about being valued within the UK as an equal member of a union, their concerns and voices would be considered. Once the UK got the result they wanted, they put all that in the bin and Brexit is the clearest example of what kind of 'union' the UK is

pixelburp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Better Together campaign was all about being valued within the UK as an equal member of a union, their concerns and voices would be considered. Once the UK got the result they wanted, they put all that in the bin and Brexit is the clearest example of what kind of 'union' the UK is

IIRC there was also the carrot dangled at the 11th Hour of even more autonomy via a "Devo Plus" option as I believe it was called & promised. That probably got a few more holdouts to better the devil you know and vote "no". There my knowledge of Hollyrood politics dries up as I presume this "Devo Max" was never properly implemented - assuming I haven't just imagined an otherwise hypothetical talking point from the time.

McGiver

listermint wrote:

Your analogy breaks down when one thinks for a second.

Hey wait , what. Clare isn't a country.

Irrelevant. There's no better example from Ireland. It's about a much smaller devolved administration overriding much larger state level administration.

If the sizes are similar or if the constituent parts are many then it's fine and such federal or quasi federal arrangement could work. Like in Spain, Canada or Switzerland.

It's never going to work with the UK "nations" because they are so tiny compared to England and they are only three of them - 1.8M, 3.0M, 5.3M and 53M is such a huge difference that it's unworkable.

If UK had 10 smaller nations with 3M population each and then England with 30M then it could work.

McGiver

fash wrote:

Common law is derived from Norman law actually

In fact, civil law in Scotland is derived from French (and indirectly Norman law).