• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Second Scottish Independence Referendum

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
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.

Do you not think it's possible to be nationalist and forward looking? Does nationalism have to be regressive?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
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.
It's not a matter of 'raising grievances' for political expediency. Scotland voted very heavily to remain in the EU yet we are leaving. That is a genuine reason to question the future direction of the country.
 
Last edited:

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Do you not think it's possible to be nationalist and forward looking? Does nationalism have to be regressive?
It depends whether the nation in question has been colonised, literally or in public perception. In the case of Ireland it isn't difficult to understand republican sentiments, even if one disagrees with them or their means of establishing self determination. It's a live issue, albeit a historically complex one. In the case of Scotland and Wales I see few grievances that are not shared by parts of England for both political and financial reasons. The Pilgrimage of Grace in the north, the peasants revolt, then the Diggers in the C17th, the Peterloo Massacre, were the result of striving for the rights of communities within the islands and were bloodily repressed. In between Scots, Welsh and Irish regiments have served the crown, and a recognition of mutual enemies has united them. In Scotland's case the antipathy is based on nothing at least as old as an English equivalent, and any financial inequity is shared by many parts of England.

Nationalism is often prompted by hard times as much as political aspiration. When the shipyards, mines and steel works were booming, nationalism was a topic for those with a bee in their bonnet and widely ignored. Now times are tougher, nationhood becomes a general panacea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
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?

Absolutely yes. Whether it be immigration, the amount we give the EU (and receive back), laws and regulations - yes, let's have the concerns and together we can do something about it. There are MEP's there to work on our behalf.

Just before the referendum Cameron got some concessions, we have kept the £, we are not is Schengen. Our government has worked to deal with "leave" concerns, sometimes with success, sometimes not.

Now the foot is in the other boot, we, in return, are getting sod all back from Brexit. It's going a head and we are being brushed aside - even Brexiters with concerns are being brushed aside.

If Brexit was listening to us, letting us voice our concerns, giving us an outline of where we want to go, then we'd probably go away, shut up and let you get on with it.
 

Hornet

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2013
Messages
724
Just before the referendum Cameron got some concessions,

Concessions to Britain will create a two-tier Europe.

One of the few certain statements one can make about Friday’s agreement between European leaders and David Cameron is that it will have little impact on the June 23 referendum on British membership of the EU. It is far too technical to sway many voters.

My pro-European friends in Britain tend to look at it in a pragmatic way. It was good enough for the British prime minister to launch the referendum with a recommendation that the UK should remain an EU member. It did the job.

From the perspective of the rest of the EU, the deal is awkward. EU leaders calculated, rightly in my view, that the cost of Brexit — a British exit from the EU — would be too high at a time when the future of the EU itself is in doubt. They were ready to pay ransom money to prevent a calamity. The question is: did they pay too much?

Their single most important concession is their agreement, for the first time, to a two-tier Europe. This is not an opt-out, an exemption or a derogation. This is not a Europe of variable speeds or variable geometry — expressions that have been used in the past to denote different degrees of integration. This is a formal exemption from the goal of ever-closer union. I am not sure whether this has any legal significance but it matters as a political statement.

How can the EU pursue ever-closer union when one of its most important EU members enjoys a permanent exemption? Core-Europe projects — those pursued by only a subset of members — cannot be the answer. They did not work well in the past. The EU has a legal mechanism in place that would allow a minimum of nine countries to seek deeper integration among each other. If you divide a union you end up with disunion. You cannot have it both ways.

The latest such project is the financial transactions tax. It started out with 11 member states. Then Estonia dropped out. And now Belgium has doubts. It is theoretically still possible for the remaining nine countries to go ahead but some doubt whether they should do this. The fewer countries that participate, the greater the chances that this tax might simply drive their banks into EU countries without such a tax.

This agreement adds to economic policy fragmentation. It recognises that eurozone and non-eurozone countries might have different needs to secure financial stability. Much of the debate in the European Council has been whether Britain should have its own rule book: ground rules for the financial sector such as capital rules and procedures for bank resolution. In the end, the EU managed to keep up the appearance of a single EU-wide rule book with some special provisions for Britain.

But how could different regulatory regimes for the financial sector work for a monetary union whose main financial centre — London — is geographically outside its own borders? According to this text, the European Central Bank and other institutions involved in financial regulation should apply supervisory decisions “in a more uniform manner than corresponding rules to be applied by national authorities of member states that do not take part in the banking union”.

This is probably the most hilarious euphemism of the text. European banks are in a bad state. The banking union was supposed to be the answer, but is incomplete because it lacks a fiscal support and joint deposit insurance.

Britain is not part of it but it is part of the EU’s single market for financial services. This exemption is hard to justify.

What about the social benefits, the big political issue in the UK? The provision that allows the UK government to restrict in-work benefits for non-British EU employees for a period of up to four years will make it marginally harder for some to move across borders.

This is not going to be the end of free movement of labour. But one would have thought that if the EU really took the concept of an ever-closer union seriously, policy should encourage cross-border labour movements, not do the opposite. Other countries will no doubt ask for — and get — similar exemptions.

There is a risk that following a vote to remain in the EU, the deal may not be implemented in full, prompting conspiracy theories about how the EU deliberately misled the British electorate.

If the deal is implemented in full, it will end the idea of ever-closer union. And if the British vote to leave, the deal will become null and void. Britain would enter a long process negotiating its exit from the EU. I struggle to see any good outcomes.

https://www.ft.com/content/c5680d9a-d6fd-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54

I hope that the SNP will also advise of the consequences of the 8.72Bn (2015 figures) financial hole that will appear if Independence is triggered, as, I would assume, the Barnett Formula for Scotland would be scrapped.
 
Last edited:

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
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.

Surely the choice facing Scotland is between in the UK and out of the EU, or out of both. As an independent Scotland could not or would at least have great difficulty meeting the entry qualifications to join the EU due to its budget deficit.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Surely the choice facing Scotland is between in the UK and out of the EU, or out of both. As an independent Scotland could not or would at least have great difficulty meeting the entry qualifications to join the EU due to its budget deficit.

Even if that's the case, presumably Scotland could still become part of the EU single market and keep most of the benefits of being in the EU until the financial situation enables them to get full membership. Better still, the UK could stop its hard Brexit nonsense right now so that Scotland doesn't need to go independent.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
It's not a matter of 'raising grievances' for political expediency. Scotland voted very heavily to remain in the EU yet we are leaving. That is a genuine reason to question the future direction of the country.

The vote was should the UK leave/remain, not should Scotland leave/remain. In 2014 Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, so is tied to what the UK wants not what it wants.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
I can eventually see that the relationship between the constituent parts of the UK (plus Gibraltar) will not be the same in 20 years time compared to today.

With the concept of devolution, I felt that back in 1997 that there should have been an option for Wales to eventually upgrade from an Assembly to a Parliament when the time is right. I am aware that Plaid Cymru have more or less remained static in terms of vote share and constituencies held the last time I looked at the voting figures, so would probably not made much difference if Wales does ever upgrade to a Parliament.

Expanding further regarding devolution, I felt that to do it properly, the same should apply to England. The England Assembly/Parliament should sit in Birmingham, so as to make the representatives more accessible. This would leave the Westminster Parliament solely dedicated to UK wide issues as a whole, with the number of MPs reduced there. Maybe Westminster could be like the devolved administrations and finally move to a proportional representation electoral system should if an England Parliament be set up?

There does seem to be a democratic deficit across the constituent parts of the UK, with Northern Ireland, Scotland, London, Gibraltar, and other towns and counties across England voting to remain as a member of the European Union. I felt that when the EU referendum (and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum) were announced and legislated for, that for any fundamental changes to happen (whether Scotland leaves the UK, or the UK to leave the EU), the result has to be a minimum of 75% in favour of Yes or Leave respectively so as to make it a meaningful vote, instead of what we have today of both results being very narrow margin.

Regarding the democratic deficit in Scotland, you only have to have a small snapshot over the previous 40 years or just under that to see that Scotland does not get the government that it votes for, which I will detail below.

1979: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives
1983: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives
1987: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives
1992: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives (only just due to the late swing)
1997: Voted mainly Labour. Got New Labour, which they were not new, and were most certainly not Labour at all.
2001: Voted mainly Labour. Got New Labour, which they were not new, and were most certainly not Labour at all.
2005: Voted mainly Labour. Got New Labour, which they were not new, and were most certainly not Labour at all.

2010: Voted mainly Labour. Got Con-Dem coalition. Furthermore, with the exception of my constituency Glasgow North East (2005 was the Speaker Michael Martin, who stood as "The Speaker seeking re-election") changing to Labour, all of the other 58 constituencies remained exactly the same as the 2005 election. This meant that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gideon George Osbourne, Ian Duncan-Smith, etc had no mandate to impose "austerity" measures on Scotland.

2015: Voted overwhelmingly SNP. Got Conservatives (only just, due to the polling errors).

The pattern above is quite plain to see in that from 1979 to the present day, despite however Scotland votes to represent it at Westminster, it does not get the government it has voted for.

To round off a lengthy post, I would favour progressive federalism across the UK, with the option of Northern Ireland being returned to the Irish, and getting rid of the requirement for elected representatives to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,546
Location
Elginshire
The vote was should the UK leave/remain, not should Scotland leave/remain. In 2014 Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, so is tied to what the UK wants not what it wants.

We were also assured by the "Better Together" campaign that the only way we could be sure that we'd remain in the EU was by voting to remain in the UK. That worked out well, didn't it?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
To round off a lengthy post, I would favour progressive federalism across the UK, with the option of Northern Ireland being returned to the Irish, and getting rid of the requirement for elected representatives to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

The option of Northern Ireland joining a United Ireland is already accounted for for under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.

I agree that a pledge for representatives to be loyal to the monarchy should be scrapped as soon as possible.
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
Great lets have more parliaments full of the second rate, it is not as if we do not have loads of money to spare.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
1979: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives
1983: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives
1987: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives
1992: Voted mainly Labour. Got Conservatives (only just due to the late swing)
1997: Voted mainly Labour. Got New Labour, which they were not new, and were most certainly not Labour at all.
2001: Voted mainly Labour. Got New Labour, which they were not new, and were most certainly not Labour at all.
2005: Voted mainly Labour. Got New Labour, which they were not new, and were most certainly not Labour at all.

2010: Voted mainly Labour. Got Con-Dem coalition. Furthermore, with the exception of my constituency Glasgow North East (2005 was the Speaker Michael Martin, who stood as "The Speaker seeking re-election") changing to Labour, all of the other 58 constituencies remained exactly the same as the 2005 election. This meant that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gideon George Osbourne, Ian Duncan-Smith, etc had no mandate to impose "austerity" measures on Scotland.

2015: Voted overwhelmingly SNP. Got Conservatives (only just, due to the polling errors).

The pattern above is quite plain to see in that from 1979 to the present day, despite however Scotland votes to represent it at Westminster, it does not get the government it has voted for.

To round off a lengthy post, I would favour progressive federalism across the UK, with the option of Northern Ireland being returned to the Irish, and getting rid of the requirement for elected representatives to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.
Large parts of England didn't get the government they voted for in the same period, disenfranchisement isn't a uniquely Scottish phenomenon and that will continue to be the case after Scottish independence. History suggests the Balkanisation of these islands rarely ends well for any of its constituent parts, but we shall see.
 

chris11256

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2012
Messages
734
My problem with the 'democratic deficit' is that its completely unrealistic for Scotland to have a veto at each election. I didn't start campaigning for South East England independence in 1997 when Labour came to power. Granted I was in primary school, but that's not the point. :)

There's also a problem with having a federal UK. Most federal nations are equal size or setup in a similar fashion with each state given equal representation. This couldn't work in the UK as England is so much larger(both physically and population) than wales, Scotland or NI. So even in a federal parliament, Scotland would still be outvoted by English representatives. The original act of union was flawed as it simply treated the new nation as a larger England.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Large parts of England didn't get the government they voted for in the same period, disenfranchisement isn't a uniquely Scottish phenomenon and that will continue to be the case after Scottish independence.
The difference being, of course, that those large parts of England aren't in themselves a constituent nation of the United Kingdom, with their own separate legal system, etc. So there's no clear path for them to seek political independence - indeed in many cases their geographical extent isn't even clearly defined due to constituency, county and local government boundaries not always being co-located.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
We were also assured by the "Better Together" campaign that the only way we could be sure that we'd remain in the EU was by voting to remain in the UK. That worked out well, didn't it?

And is it any surer that an independent Scotland will be allowed into the EU? Lets see what Spain (with its concerns re Catalonia) has to say about that shall we.
 
Last edited:

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
The difference being, of course, that those large parts of England aren't in themselves a constituent nation of the United Kingdom, with their own separate legal system, etc. So there's no clear path for them to seek political independence
That's assuming party political affiliation should be the defining feature of independence. Labour voters in some affluent parts of London who have never had local representation, and the same is true of Conservatives in the north and elsewhere. It requires the extra ingredient of nationalism to turn political aspiration into identity politics.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
And is it any surer that an independent Scotland will be allowed into the EU? Lets see what Spain (with its concerns re Catalonia) has to say about that shall we.

I agree that will always be a big issue when it comes to a newly independent Scotland trying to join the EU. Spain obviously has Catalonia and the Basque country has similar aspirations in both Spain and France.

I'm not sure how many other EU states have serious issues with separatist movements.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
That's assuming party political affiliation should be the defining feature of independence.
I've made no such assumption. Any putative Scottish independence would only follow on from an affirmative majority (possibly even a plurality) vote to that effect in a plebiscite.

While parties may have official positions with regards to their desired outcome, the question being put forward to the people will not be to vote for either a party or a representative but rather for or against a change to the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
 
Last edited:

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
And is it any surer that an independent Scotland will be allowed into the EU? Lets see what Spain (with its concerns re Catalonia) has to say about that shall we.

They have the option to apply to join EFTA and, like Norway, have full access to the EU (although no voting rights) via the EEA and keep FoM - and there's not a lot Spain could do about it.

Although it would be interesting if after independence that's exactly what UK-lite would do, although if FoM is a requirement that would probably rule UK out unless there is a significant change of mind at the top.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
I've made no such assumption. Any putative Scottish independence would only follow on from an affirmative majority (possibly even a plurality) vote to that effect in a plebiscite.

While parties may have official positions with regards to their desired outcome, the question being put forward to the people will not be to vote for either a party or a representative but rather for or against a change to the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
A vote for the SNP is indistinguishable from a nationalist vote in the same way a Sinn Fein vote is. That isn't a criticism of the aspiration, but a fact of political life.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
A vote for the SNP is indistinguishable from a nationalist vote in the same way a Sinn Fein vote is. That isn't a criticism of the aspiration, but a fact of political life.
That is simply not the case.
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,395
Location
Glasgow
Like najaB I'm another who voted SNP without wishing to have independence, in my case partly because our local MP is very good. I know quite a few others who have voted tactically for the SNP.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
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?


Firstly I apologise for my terrible spelling error, clearly hadn't had my coffee!

The concerns of the majority (when including the 3.3m non-uk EU citizens that live in the UK) about the loss of our freedoms haven't been mentioned at all. There's nobody representing us, labour and Tory are whipped into supporting whatever May pushes, and that's why there's so much disquiet. Instead we have families worried they'll be split apart, people who have spent 30 years building a life (and paying taxes) that are concerned about being booted out in 2 years time, people who's companies are concerned about their future.

Instead we've had 9 months of ukip-level posturing from the two largest parties, and of course "a red white and blue brexit".
 

gareth950

Member
Joined
3 Nov 2013
Messages
1,009
What is really needed in the UK is total reform of the political system and system of government. FPTP needs to be abolished to remove the crazy situation of a political party being able to form a govt on just 35% of the popular vote, as with the Conservatives in 2015.

Some form of proportional representation is needed, whether it's pure PR or not. Yes there would be more coalitions, but that's what they have in Germany for example and they manage. Coalitions would clip the extremist views of certain parties and make more people feel like their views are represented in Parliament

A fully elected second chamber also, elected at a seperate time to the Commons in the political cycle to curb the tyranny of a govt, as we have now.

Bringing this back on topic though, who can seriously blame Sturgeon for calling another referendum? May needs to remember that she's PM of the UK, not just England and she's totally ignored Scotland, instead being more concerned about re-modelling the Tories as UKIP and pleasing the most extremist elements in her party.
She's not acting in the national interest - only her's. The irony of her comments about the SNP would be laugh out loud hilarious if the situation the country is in wasn't so dire.
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
What is really needed in the UK is total reform of the political system and system of government. FPTP needs to be abolished to remove the crazy situation of a political party being able to form a govt on just 35% of the popular vote, as with the Conservatives in 2015.

Some form of proportional representation is needed, whether it's pure PR or not. Yes there would be more coalitions, but that's what they have in Germany for example and they manage. Coalitions would clip the extremist views of certain parties and make more people feel like their views are represented in Parliament

A fully elected second chamber also, elected at a seperate time to the Commons in the political cycle to curb the tyranny of a govt, as we have now.

Bringing this back on topic though, who can seriously blame Sturgeon for calling another referendum? May needs to remember that she's PM of the UK, not just England and she's totally ignored Scotland, instead being more concerned about re-modelling the Tories as UKIP and pleasing the most extremist elements in her party.
She's not acting in the national interest - only her's. The irony of her comments about the SNP would be laugh out loud hilarious if the situation the country is in wasn't so dire.

Hear, hear! to all of that.
 

Hornet

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2013
Messages
724
What is really needed in the UK is total reform of the political system and system of government. FPTP needs to be abolished to remove the crazy situation of a political party being able to form a govt on just 35% of the popular vote, as with the Conservatives in 2015.

Some form of proportional representation is needed, whether it's pure PR or not. Yes there would be more coalitions, but that's what they have in Germany for example and they manage. Coalitions would clip the extremist views of certain parties and make more people feel like their views are represented in Parliament

A fully elected second chamber also, elected at a seperate time to the Commons in the political cycle to curb the tyranny of a govt, as we have now.

Bringing this back on topic though, who can seriously blame Sturgeon for calling another referendum? May needs to remember that she's PM of the UK, not just England and she's totally ignored Scotland, instead being more concerned about re-modelling the Tories as UKIP and pleasing the most extremist elements in her party.
She's not acting in the national interest - only her's. The irony of her comments about the SNP would be laugh out loud hilarious if the situation the country is in wasn't so dire.

Been there. Done that. Had a Referendum in 2011. 2 to 1 voted to retain FPTP. Can't see that figure changing greatly.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13297573
 

Tim R-T-C

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2011
Messages
2,143
Some form of proportional representation is needed, whether it's pure PR or not. Yes there would be more coalitions, but that's what they have in Germany for example and they manage. Coalitions would clip the extremist views of certain parties and make more people feel like their views are represented in Parliament

If anything PR often gives extreme parties more power as even with small numbers of votes, they can get Kingmaker powers.

Given the results of the 2015 election, UKIP would receive 12% of seats (assuming a full national PR set-up), probably forming a coalition with the Tories to take power. This would doubtless have lead to the same result re: EU referendum that we saw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top