Second Scottish Independence Referendum

[Trog]

Does the Brexit argument really form a logical basis for Scottish independence?

As by the time Scotland became independent it would be out of the EU, and the budget cuts required to meet the maximum deficit criteria for membership make getting back into the EU unlikely.

 

[GusB]

I concur however it's difficult to imagine someone being dead against independence and yet still choosing to vote for the SNP.

Although I do tend to agree with much that the SNP stand for (independence included), my vote for them was as much a tactical vote as for any other reason (at least in UK elections) - in my constituency the Tories usually take second place. There was perhaps a time when I would have voted LibDem, and I have voted Labour in the past, so there wasn't much alternative other than not voting or spoiling my ballot. I made an exception in 2015 when the Greens stood a candidate for the first time.

 

[me123]

I concur however it's difficult to imagine someone being dead against independence and yet still choosing to vote for the SNP.

You don't need to imagine - head up to Scotland and you could find some of them. Any people lurking here who are SNP voting unionists?

 

[najaB]

Perhaps, but eventually the position would have changed because from what I can see younger voters are more likely to vote for independence.

And if it had, what is wrong with that? Self-determination is a fundamental right of any electorate.

If, at some future date, the majority of Scotland's people wanted political independence then it would only be right that it happened.

 

[najaB]

You don't need to imagine - head up to Scotland and you could find some of them. Any people lurking here who are SNP voting unionists?

*Raises hand*

Voted 'No' in the independence referendum and for the SNP in the general election.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And if it had, what is wrong with that? Self-determination is a fundamental right of any electorate.

If, at some future date, the majority of Scotland's people wanted political independence then it would only be right that it happened.

I'm in complete agreement and I hope that the Scots achieve independence at the next time of asking.

 

[chris11256]

Article on sky news this morning suggesting the May will agree to section 30, if the SNP will an absolute majority in 2021. Suggests she will refuse any vote held before brexit.

 

[me123]

Article on sky news this morning suggesting the May will agree to section 30, if the SNP will an absolute majority in 2021. Suggests she will refuse any vote held before brexit.

A very strange clause to add. There is a pro-independence majority in Holyrood. Whilst the SNP are now a minority administration, the support from the Scottish Green party ensures a majority of MSPs would back a referendum and back independence. Has Mrs May just completely snubbed the Scottish Greens? (Not to mention the numerous smaller parties that also back independence, although they haven't been elected to Holyrood at present).

Besides, winning an absolute majority in the voting system for the Scottish Parliament is an extraordinary event. The SNP pulled it off in 2011 against all expectations, but the system is set up to make such a task very difficult even for the most popular parties.

 

[chris11256]

A very strange clause to add. There is a pro-independence majority in Holyrood. Whilst the SNP are now a minority administration, the support from the Scottish Green party ensures a majority of MSPs would back a referendum and back independence. Has Mrs May just completely snubbed the Scottish Greens? (Not to mention the numerous smaller parties that also back independence, although they haven't been elected to Holyrood at present).

Besides, winning an absolute majority in the voting system for the Scottish Parliament is an extraordinary event. The SNP pulled it off in 2011 against all expectations, but the system is set up to make such a task very difficult even for the most popular parties.

Whether that's true or no idea. We'll learn more when the section 30 request reaches Westminster.

 

[AlterEgo]

A very strange clause to add. There is a pro-independence majority in Holyrood. Whilst the SNP are now a minority administration, the support from the Scottish Green party ensures a majority of MSPs would back a referendum and back independence. Has Mrs May just completely snubbed the Scottish Greens? (Not to mention the numerous smaller parties that also back independence, although they haven't been elected to Holyrood at present).

Besides, winning an absolute majority in the voting system for the Scottish Parliament is an extraordinary event. The SNP pulled it off in 2011 against all expectations, but the system is set up to make such a task very difficult even for the most popular parties.

Time to get on the streets then.

 

[Clip]

Would the Spanish veto anty EU application for an independant Scotland though?

 

[meridian2]

As things stand the British government has one of its kingdoms working for independence, and against centralised rule. That's a valid political tool, but let's recognise it for what it is and not frame in general altruism. What's "good" for Britain is "bad" for an independent Scottish nation by definition, and the SNP will seek leverage in every political fault line. It's an untenable situation for the status quo and cannot continue.

The SNP see the Brexit vote as an opportunity to achieve its goals, and the European issue is secondary in my opinion. Had the UK voted to Remain and the Scots voted overwhelmingly Out, the SNP would be making the same arguments that its voters were out of step and should therefor determine their own future. The problem Scotland faces is in it's reasonable aspiration for independent nationhood it risks isolation, and an uncertain economic future, perils it is clearly prepared to accept for the wider goal. Curious then that it criticises the Westminster government for wanting independence with similar potential hazards. Both are essentially populist movements based on sentiment. Until separation is implemented there will be no way of knowing the reality for either, but separate they will.

 

[Railops]

Want to leave the EU - you're a swivel eyed racist, thick, biggoted zenophobe.
Want to leave the British Union - you're a progressive, libertarian who wants sovereignty and independence.

 

[radamfi]

Want to leave the EU - you're a swivel eyed racist, thick, biggoted zenophobe.
Want to leave the British Union - you're a progressive, libertarian who wants sovereignty and independence.

Scottish nationalists want to keep freedom of movement from the EU.

(Hard) Brexiters don't.

 

[Mag_seven]

Teresa May needs to tell the SNP where to get off. The referendum in 2014 settled the matter for "a generation". We cannot keep raising grievances to try to justify continual referendums till we get the result we want. To do so is in itself anti-democratic. Sturgeon should get on with the job of governing Scotland which they appear to be making a complete mess of. How about renationalising the railways in Scotland for a start!

 

[najaB]

Article on sky news this morning suggesting the May will agree to section 30, if the SNP will an absolute majority in 2021. Suggests she will refuse any vote held before brexit.

Hello Constitutional Crisis, my old friend...

 

[najaB]

The SNP see the Brexit vote as an opportunity to achieve its goals, and the European issue is secondary in my opinion. Had the UK voted to Remain and the Scots voted overwhelmingly Out, the SNP would be making the same arguments that its voters were out of step and should therefor determine their own future.

And they would be perfectly entitled to do so. As I said above, self-determination is a basic right of any people. If the clearly demonstrated will of the Scottish electorate is at odds with the clearly demonstrated will of the rest of the UK then it can hardly be called a 'United' Kingdom can it?

 

[Howardh]

Teresa May needs to tell the SNP where to get off. The referendum in 2014 settled the matter for "a generation". We cannot keep raising grievances to try to justify continual referendums till we get the result we want. To do so is in itself anti-democratic. Sturgeon should get on with the job of governing Scotland which they appear to be making a complete mess of. How about renationalising the railways in Scotland for a start!

Under the terms and conditions, it was unless there was a "serious material change". There has been, through no fault of Scotland.
So, yes, another referendum is fully legit.

 

[meridian2]

Scottish nationalists want to keep freedom of movement from the EU.

(Hard) Brexiters don't.

Purely anecdotal, but I was in Ireland a couple of years ago, and the cabbie recognised my English accent. Expecting a Republican tirade he pointed to the people in the streets and said look at what the country has become. We were better under Queenie and I never thought I'd say that. Clearly one taxi driver does not represent public opinion as a whole, but complete freedom of movement would see a very different Scotland to the one nationalists anticipate, especially if England has immigration control.

It's disingenuous of the SNP to present themselves as open and forward looking on the one hand and nationalistic on the other. The instinctive hatred of all things English taints every issue north of the border, and clouds every political judgement.

 

[miami]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm English too, but I think that the English Tories are treating Scotland and the devolved Scottish parliament disgracefully. Sturgeon is quite right to protest that the strong Scottish remain vote had received not the slightest consideration from the woman hell-bent on a hard Brexit.

Neither has the English remain vote, or the Welsh, and there's been scant mention of the Northern Ireland remain vote.

About 1/2 the country voted to remain, and they're concerns have been ignored.

There aren't many who use another country's currency directly.

The Emirati Dirham is directly pegged to the US Dollar at a fixed exchange rate. So there's a huge argument to say that the sheikhs in Abu Dhabi are controlled by decisions in Washington and New York.

Scotland has a population about 5,373,000, and a GDP of $245b.

Panama uses the US dollar as legal tender (in addition to it's own coins which are a 1:1 mapping), with a population of 4,058,374 and GDP of $82b
El Salvador is the same, 6,377,195 and $52b
and Equador with 16,144,000 and $195b

Kosovo with a population of 1,859,203 (2014) and GDP of $19b uses the Euro.

What if the rUK does not want to give them to Scotland and strictly speaking they should not due to them not being strictly part of the pre Union Scottish state.

We're not talking about divvying up Paul Sidorczuk's gardens (which I understand are of a similar area as Uist), the UK (at least on paper) recognises the right to self determination. If Shetland want's to be independent, that's fine. If it wants to be part of Scotland, that's fine.

 

[meridian2]

And they would be perfectly entitled to do so. As I said above, self-determination is a basic right of any people. If the clearly demonstrated will of the Scottish electorate is at odds with the clearly demonstrated will of the rest of the UK then it can hardly be called a 'United' Kingdom can it?

Of course it can. In a United Kingdom the constituent parts are likely to be out of step with one another on various issues at different times and for different reasons. The difference now is one of those kingdoms has a nationalist government who extrapolate every difference into an irreconcilable one based on national characteristics and interests and in need of immediate redress. They're fully entitled to emphasise those differences, but they aren't based on pragmatism (a profound belief in the EU project in this case) but on politics and opportunism.

 

[najaB]

Of course it can. In a United Kingdom the constituent parts are likely to be out of step with one another on various issues at different times and for different reasons.

I don't disagree with that. However what I was talking about a clearly demonstrated will of the majority of one part of the country that is fundamentally different (and incompatible) with the clearly demonstrated will of the rest.

To use an analogy - a married couple will disagree from time to time. The causes of those disagreements make be quite deeply held. However, as long as they agree on a fundamental basis that they are a couple, stronger and better off as a pair and respect each other's opinions/beliefs then their relationship is likely to endure.

On the other hand, if they take diametrically opposing views on key aspects of their lives and refuse to accept and respect the other's viewpoint. If one partner uses force/compulsion to bend the other to their will then separation is not only inevitable, it's in everyone's best interest.

 

[meridian2]

I don't disagree with that. However what I was talking about a clearly demonstrated will of the majority of one part of the country that is fundamentally different (and incompatible) with the clearly demonstrated will of the rest.

The division isn't about membership of the EU. The difference in voting characteristics does not represent a profound schism between national sensibilities on the issue. If it did every English and Welsh Remainer would be heading north and Scots eurosceptics would be on the next train south. Neither of those are going to happen, so while people may care, they don't care that much. What it's really about is leverage of any political difference on nationalistic lines with the single goal of Scottish independence. I'm not knocking the aspiration, I'm highlighting the hypocrisy behind the method.

 

[najaB]

The division isn't about membership of the EU.

However, such a division has come to the fore since 2014. Hence it is within the remit of the Scottish Government to seek a plebiscite to determine the future direction of the country: in the UK and out the EU or vice versa.

 

[meridian2]

However, such a division has come to the fore since 2014. Hence it is within the remit of the Scottish Government to seek a plebiscite to determine the future direction of the country: in the UK and out the EU or vice versa.

Indeed. It happened to be an EU referendum, it could have been stray dogs policy or the price of fish, Holyrood would be hauling on the lever for all its worth in the hope of bouncing independence through. It only has to happen once by a margin of one vote, and is effectively irreversible, so whatever gets the job done is fine by the SNP. The bleeding heart stuff over EU membership is pure politics.

 

[ExRes]

About 1/2 the country voted to remain, and they're concerns have been ignored.

How do you claim that "they're concerns have been ignored"? The result of the referendum was that more people voted to leave than stay, therefore the concerns of the majority should be dealt with first

If the result had been the other way around do you seriously think that the 'concerns' of those that voted leave would have been dealt with, either at governmental level or on this forum?

 

[najaB]

The bleeding heart stuff over EU membership is pure politics.

If the Scottish results in the EU referendum had been closer I might agree with you. However, every voting area in Scotland voted to Remain, most of them by quite a large margin. This isn't a made-up issue.

 

[AlterEgo]

Want to leave the EU - you're a swivel eyed racist, thick, biggoted zenophobe.
Want to leave the British Union - you're a progressive, libertarian who wants sovereignty and independence.

My favourite bit of that post was the double spelling error in "thick bigoted xenophobe".

The key difference between Brexit and Scottish independence is the concept of freedom of movement. Scottish independence is championed by a socially progressive party (up to you whether socially progressive is "good"!), whereas Brexit is championed by people who welcome authoritarianism and harder borders.

 

[AlterEgo]

Teresa May needs to tell the SNP where to get off. The referendum in 2014 settled the matter for "a generation". We cannot keep raising grievances to try to justify continual referendums till we get the result we want. To do so is in itself anti-democratic. Sturgeon should get on with the job of governing Scotland which they appear to be making a complete mess of. How about renationalising the railways in Scotland for a start!

It didn't though. The UK underwent huge political change in the interim and it seems fair to give Scotland the chance to react to that. Westminster also hasn't kept most of the promises it made to Scotland.

 

[meridian2]

If the Scottish results in the EU referendum had been closer I might agree with you. However, every voting area in Scotland voted to Remain, most of them by quite a large margin. This isn't a made-up issue.

But it is only one issue and a gift to a nationalist government. I think an independent Scotland is inevitable and it will be a very different place to the existing one, and not entirely for the better. However I fully support the right of Scots to screw it up on their own without Westminster interfering. I don't think Europe will be their saviour, even factoring in an EU vendetta over Brexit. Look at Ireland post-2008 to see how finances affect social policy and emigration rates. Scots won't be heading south for jobs, it'll be Frankfurt and Utrecht and the best of luck to them.