Second Scottish Independence Referendum

[ainsworth74]

So I guess that's that. Curtains on the UK. We had a good run but I can't see anything other than a vote in favour this time.

Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed she will ask for permission to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence.

Ms Sturgeon said she wanted a vote to be held between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of the following year.

The Scottish first minister said the move was needed to protect Scottish interests in the wake of the UK voting to leave the EU.

She said she would ask the Scottish Parliament next week to request a Section 30 order from Westminster.

The order would be needed to allow a fresh legally-binding referendum on independence to be held.

Continues...

Source

 

[Dave1987]

With Mrs May and her cabinets view of Brexit I can't see anything other than a yes vote for a second Scottish Indy Ref. It's definitely the beginning of the end of the UK.

 

[Merseysider]

Perhaps rightly so. My thoughts on the current Tory government's attitude to Holyrood are unprintable. Despite being English, I'm of the opinion the Scots have the right to pursue their best interests, which are probably outside the UK and in the EU. A second referendum was inevitable after the Brexit vote. All Theresa May has done is fob Scotland off, refusing them a veto, partial withdrawal, etc.

 

[duncanp]

Not according to friends in Scotland, or indeed the latest opinion polls which show a majority of Scots opposed to a second independence referendum.

Ultimately it will depend on what kind of deal the UK government manages to negotiate with the EU. If it is at all favourable, with good trading terms etc, then many people in Scotland might decide that they would rather stay in the UK and outside the EU, rather than outside the UK but in the EU.

Perhaps that is why Nicola Sturgeon wants to have indyref2 before Brexit takes place rather than after.

If Scotland does become independent, they will have to negotiate their terms of entry with the EU, and then will there be another referendum in Scotland to decide whether they want to join the EU?

 

[Howardh]

If Scotland does become independent, they will have to negotiate their terms of entry with the EU, and then will there be another referendum in Scotland to decide whether they want to join the EU?

I expect the question on the referendum will be something like "do you want Scotland to be an independent country and apply for EU membership?" so it covers both eventualities clearly, unlike....

What muddies things is if, further down the line, the EU insist on Scotland taking the Euro. That must be made clear at the referendum that it is a possibility, and that a vote for independence is also a vote for the Euro should it be part of the application.

 

[Domh245]

We certainly live in interesting times...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not according to friends in Scotland, or indeed the latest opinion polls which show a majority of Scots opposed to a second independence referendum.

Opinion polls are generally skewed by the client doing the asking. We've seen that enough times recently.

The Tories promised plenty last time, and delivered none of it. And given the Brexit car wreck, the doom and gloom won't even work this time. Scotland overwhelmingly voted against Brexit. It'd be very interesting.

 

[GusB]

I expect the question on the referendum will be something like "do you want Scotland to be an independent country and apply for EU membership?" so it covers both eventualities clearly, unlike....

What muddies things is if, further down the line, the EU insist on Scotland taking the Euro. That must be made clear at the referendum that it is a possibility, and that a vote for independence is also a vote for the Euro should it be part of the application.

There would have to be separate questions about being independent and EU membership. A single question wouldn't cater for those who voted yes/leave respectively on the last two occasions.

 

[overthewater]

I want another Scottish REF for EU membership aswell. Maybe it will change this time around.

 

[Trog]

All Theresa May has done is fob Scotland off, refusing them a veto, partial withdrawal, etc.

A veto on what? If it is national policy the fact that Scotland has only about 1/12 of the population of the rest of the UK, would not make that very democratic.

Partial withdrawal would surely not be within Mrs May's gift anyway but would have to be agreed jointly with the EU. Having different import duties in different parts of the same country would be a fiscal nightmare, can you imagine how much stuff would get shifted from one side of the boarder to the other.

 

[Trog]

What muddies things is if, further down the line, the EU insist on Scotland taking the Euro. That must be made clear at the referendum that it is a possibility, and that a vote for independence is also a vote for the Euro should it be part of the application.

Independence would mean either the Euro or a Scottish home grown currency. The Scot's could state that their currency is 1 to 1 with the UK pound, but would the financial markets agree. It would also be a funny sort of independence that left London in charge of a large part of Scotland's economy.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

All Theresa May has done is fob Scotland off, refusing them a veto, partial withdrawal, etc.

Issues like allowing partial withdrawal are likely to come down to the EU, rather than to Britain and I don't see them having any incentive to give Britain any special treatment.

Giving them a veto makes no sense, in that case, London, Wales and certainly NI should have had the same.

 

[ExRes]

So I guess that's that. Curtains on the UK. We had a good run but I can't see anything other than a vote in favour this time.



Source

On what basis is a vote for independence to be made? how does Sturgeon intend to show the Scots that they can survive financially? it was a farce the first time around when the Salmond Oil Company was going to be the be all and end all of everything, how can the Sturgeon Oil Company keep a Scottish economy anywhere near afloat?

The only way the Scots can be independent is to sell themselves lock, stock and barrel to the EU, some independence that will be, get rid of those horrible English and hand over control to the Germans instead, I can't see anything other than an even bigger 'no' vote than the first time around

 

[Hornet]

On what basis is a vote for independence to be made? how does Sturgeon intend to show the Scots that they can survive financially? it was a farce the first time around when the Salmond Oil Company was going to be the be all and end all of everything, how can the Sturgeon Oil Company keep a Scottish economy anywhere near afloat?

The only way the Scots can be independent is to sell themselves lock, stock and barrel to the EU, some independence that will be, get rid of those horrible English and hand over control to the Germans instead, I can't see anything other than an even bigger 'no' vote than the first time around

Forbes article August 2016.

There's something of a rather amusing blow to the desires for Scottish independence. The original aim of the Nationalists was something along the lines of get rid of the union with England and sign up to the European Union as an independent member. This was all to be financed by the vast oil revenues which would no longer have to be shared with the Sassenachs. What has actually happened is that the oil price has fallen, to any interesting round number there are no oil revenues, and the Scottish budget deficit is therefore is such a state that the European Union wouldn't actually accept Scottish membership however nicely they asked.

Which is a bit of a blow to those plans really:

The annual statistics which lay bare the strength of the Scottish economy revealed that the size of the deficit, £14.8 billion, was up £500 million from the year before. This would give an independent nation a deficit level comparable with GDP of 9.5 per cent, more than twice the rate of the rest of the UK and worse than that of every EU member state, including Greece.

To be a member of the EU you should have, except in extremis, a budget deficit of no more than 3% of GDP. Fudging is possible by not a tripling of that target. The cause is the oil price:

Four years ago, Scotland’s share of oil revenues topped £11 billion. Even in 2014-15, its share of North Sea tax receipts was £1.8 billion. The latest figures revealed that, by 2015-16, oil revenues had slumped to £60 million — a drop of 97 per cent in a year. Experts warned that this might be the pattern for years to come. Graeme Roy, director of Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander Institute, warned that the oil figures were likely to be the “new normal”, given the long-term outlook for the oil and gas sector.

£60 million a year really isn't enough to be supporting a bid for independence. It's only the subsidies from those hated English which are actually covering the budget:

Fifteen billion quid. It's a very big number. So as the deficit calculated for government spending on and in Scotland last year, rounded up a bit, does it have much meaning?
Politically, yes. The big figure that leaps out of GERS - Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland - fuels the debate about Scotland's constitutional future.
To one side, it makes Scotland's public spending habit look reliant on transfers within the UK. It needs that "pooling and sharing". To the other, it speaks of a failure to get the Scottish economy growing faster, and is a reminder of the failure to put oil revenues aside from the boom years.

As a very rough guide government spending is around 50% of Scotland's GDP. There's that budget deficit climbing towards 10% of GDP. Thus independence would require one of two things, either a cut in government spending of 10% of GDP, or a rise in taxation of that amount. Or some combination of the two. That cut in spending would mean 20% off the top of absolutely everything government does - or, equally, the tax method would require everyone to pay 20% more in tax than they do.

It's entirely possible that the independence argument will rumble along. It's never really been driven particularly by matters economic anyway. But on an economic basis an independent Scotland simply isn't going to happen. There simply will not be a 10% of GDP fiscal squeeze and without it Scotland wouldn't be able to get into the EU. Thus it's not going to happen.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...dnt-join-the-eu-if-it-wanted-to/#29fa270433a5

The Barroso Doctrine would also apply in the case of any Scottish approach to the EU for membership. I'm sure the SNP will fully advise their electorate on the requirements of EU membership.

 

[Trog]

So Jockxit would save England, Wales and Northern Island about £13 billion a year which could be spent on the NHS instead. Must find a bus to paint the good news on.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

So Jockxit would save England, Wales and Northern Island about £13 billion a year which could be spent on the NHS instead. Must find a bus to paint the good news on.

I wonder if the rest of the UK should get a vote on kicking them out?

 

[Howardh]

Independence would mean either the Euro or a Scottish home grown currency. The Scot's could state that their currency is 1 to 1 with the UK pound, but would the financial markets agree. It would also be a funny sort of independence that left London in charge of a large part of Scotland's economy.

It wouldn't be unique. Montenegro use the Euro even though they are not in the EU - so one could argue their destiny is in the hands of Frankfurt but they don't have any say! Smaller nations also tag on to a larger one's currency, Liechenstein use the Swiss Franc for example. I wonder what is the largest country using someone else's currency? Must be a few using the US Dollar??

 

[meridian2]

So Jockxit would save England, Wales and Northern Island about £13 billion a year which could be spent on the NHS instead. Must find a bus to paint the good news on.

Jocks strapped?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The only way the Scots can be independent is to sell themselves lock, stock and barrel to the EU, some independence that will be, get rid of those horrible English and hand over control to the Germans instead

A vote for independence isn't a purely economic decision, if it was Brexit would have been overwhelmingly voted against. It's also an emotional decision.

Scotland is a bigger country than the Republic of Ireland. Eire has had issues, and plenty of them, but has survived. After initially having the Punt tied to sterling, it has embraced the Euro, it has embraced metric measurements, and it has done relatively well out of it. But that's because independence from England was important enough for them to manage it.

There's no reason why Scotland couldn't similarly do well away from England. And if the Tories keep kicking Scotland the way they have been since the last vote, it won't take all that many Scots to decide that the Germans are better masters to swing the vote.

You make the mistake a lot of English politicians make in thinking that they are seen as preferable to Germans. I'm not sure they are in a lot of Scotland these days.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wonder what is the largest country using someone else's currency? Must be a few using the US Dollar??

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.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Is it theoretically possible that they could hold a vote for independence from the rest of the UK and win and then hold a referendum for entering the EU and then say no.... leaving them out of both the UK and the EU?

 

[Senex]

Perhaps rightly so. My thoughts on the current Tory government's attitude to Holyrood are unprintable. Despite being English, I'm of the opinion the Scots have the right to pursue their best interests, which are probably outside the UK and in the EU. A second referendum was inevitable after the Brexit vote. All Theresa May has done is fob Scotland off, refusing them a veto, partial withdrawal, etc.

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.

 

[Hornet]

You also have to consider how the outcome will affect the West Lothian Question and the Barnett formula.

In a debate on devolution to Scotland and Wales on 14 November 1977, Mr Dalyell said: “For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hat-is-the-west-lothian-question-9743318.html

Lord Barnett: Thank you very much, Lord
Chairman. I would be happy to do so. Can I make
clear how it all began? It began of course when I was
chief secretary in 1977–78. I changed the then method
of increasing or decreasing expenditure annually,
largely cutting public expenditure for most of my five
years. The system I decided to use at that time to
change was that any increase or decrease in the
overall budget for public expenditure for the whole of
the UK should be divided amongst the regions on a
population basis which was roughly 85 per cent
England, 10 per cent Scotland and 5 per cent Wales.
Northern Ireland was taken as the same at 5 per cent
but of course in Northern Ireland’s case they got a lot
more than that for a variety of reasons which will be
fairly obvious. It was not then described as the
Barnett Formula. Indeed, in a book I published in
1982 called Inside the Treasury there is no reference to
the name Barnett Formula because it was not at that
stage ever known as that. It only became known as
the Barnett Formula when it was kept going, from a
system I used in 1977–78, by the Thatcher
government and then the Major government for 18
years. That is when it became known as the Barnett
Formula. Nobody wanted to change it for fear of
upsetting the electors in those areas. It did not have
any particular eVect on the 1997 election when it will
be well known the then Conservative Government
lost every seat in Scotland and in Wales. I would take
some credit for that but I am not doing so this
afternoon. It had no eVect, I am sure. The latest
figures for expenditure per head on average in the
regions, which I am sure you will have seen, show that
in England the average public expenditure is some
£1,600 per head less than in Scotland. That is the
planned expenditure for 2007–08 which is the latest
figure published by the Treasury. The outturn may
well be slightly diVerent as it has been each year in the
past. The latest figures will be out in April this year.
They are not published until April in any year. These
are the very latest figures. The reason I was worried
about all this and why I pressed the Liaison
Committee to allow there to be an ad hoc select
committee was that I was worried that the figures
would so upset people in England that they would
demand a separation which would be, in my view,
hugely damaging because I have no wish to see the
UK split into three separate countries. I want to see
the UK sustained and I thought it did not seem fair
and therefore should be reviewed with a view to
seeing whether changes were needed and what those
changes should be. The terms of reference which I
eventually agreed with the Liaison Committee, as
you will have seen, are very tight. They exclude
anything other than a review of the formula with a
view to seeing whether it should continue and
whether there should be any changes based on the
need mechanism. How that need would be devised
and defined would be a matter for this Committee to
recommend. That basically is what has happened so
far. I would now be very pleased to answer any
questions that the Committee has for me.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf

 

[Tetchytyke]

the woman hell-bent on a hard Brexit.

Theresa May gives more of a toss about the handful of hard-right fruitloops on her backbenches than she does about the 17m people in the UK who don't want to leave the EU.

I wouldn't be surprised if Scots choose to try their luck with a new mistress.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Forbes article August 2016.

Four years ago, Scotland’s share of oil revenues topped £11 billion. Even in 2014-15, its share of North Sea tax receipts was £1.8 billion. The latest figures revealed that, by 2015-16, oil revenues had slumped to £60 million — a drop of 97 per cent in a year. Experts warned that this might be the pattern for years to come. Graeme Roy, director of Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander Institute, warned that the oil figures were likely to be the “new normal”, given the long-term outlook for the oil and gas sector.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...dnt-join-the-eu-if-it-wanted-to/#29fa270433a5

Crude oil prices have dropped by about half over the last 4 years, and according to the data at http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil have actually risen during 2016. How is it possible for that to cause the claimed 97% fall in Scottish oil revenues during 2016?

 

[Trog]

Crude oil prices have dropped by about half over the last 4 years, and according to the data at http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil have actually risen during 2016. How is it possible for that to cause the claimed 97% fall in Scottish oil revenues during 2016?

Tax figures may be in arrears, perhaps April to April so the 2016 figure is for 9 months of 2015 and 3 months of 2016.

I believe production in the North Sea has also been falling, and if it is costing more to get the oil out of the ground the profit to be taxed may be falling even faster than that.

 

[me123]

Bring. It. On. (I mean, not for me as I'll likely be living in Wales when the referendum happens, but it would be lovely to be able to go home to an independent country in a few years).

I've been unabashed about my support for Scottish Independence, and I maintain that position. I shan't go into the nitty gritty on here, but I am a Scot who feels that Scotland has been let down by Westminster, sidelined by the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" argument that is sadly still commonplace. There has a been a significant change in the political landscape since the last referendum. Since Scotland voted No in 2014, we have seen the rUK lurch to the right and become more isolationist (leaving the EU). Scotland's population, on the whole, would prefer a different path as has been made evident. Yet, whilst there are attempts to placate us (The Smith commission, claims that we can be involved in the process of leaving the EU) these have amounted to little more than empty promises. To use Ms Sturgeon's words, there has been a material change in circumstances.

I think this could be a harder sell to the electorate, though. I am in no doubt that the vision of an independent Scotland within the EU and perhaps not as close to Drumpf's America will appeal to many voters, I suspect the unionists will be harder to persuade. In the 2014 referendum, the Yes campaign pulled off a remarkable feat - bringing the campaign to a nail-biting conclusion on the night as the vote, considered almost certain to be a resounding "No" only a few months previously, was very tight indeed. But for the 2014 referendum I would argue that the Unionists, even if opposed to independence, were more open to having the discussion. This time around, I do worry that the camps are only more entrenched in their views than they were before, and there may be less tendency to swing voters in either direction. The opinion polls haven't demonstrated much movement from the 55/45 split in the last two-and-a-half years. But, with new arguments and a different global landscape, perhaps we can reinvigorate the debate.

I for one do not think that an Independent Scotland will be an easy road - I did not think this prior to the 2014 referendum either. Scotland would face challenges, but at least they'd be our challenges and at least we would be responding to them. And yes, we'd make mistakes, but they'd be our mistakes. We would no longer be dependent on Westminster, an institution whose makeup is decided primarily by voters in key marginal seats, mostly in Middle England.

Scotland - let's do this!

 

[Trog]

Is it theoretically possible that they could hold a vote for independence from the rest of the UK and win and then hold a referendum for entering the EU and then say no.... leaving them out of both the UK and the EU?

The big boxed quote in Hornets post suggests that if an independent Scotland wanted to join the EU they would not be able to make the financial requirements, without swinging cuts to government expenditure.

So Scotland could end up out of both the UK and EU.


There is also a law on the statute book that states that in the event of a break up of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, the Orkney and Shetland Islands can not become part of Scotland and instead become a Crown Dependency. I bet Wee Jimmy Cranky will love that one if the UK insists on it. As it would include a large amount of what oil is left.

 

[najaB]

I wonder what is the largest country using someone else's currency? Must be a few using the US Dollar??

Probably Zimbabwe - they use the US dollar for official government purposes.

 

[Busaholic]

Domino effect? Northern Ireland next? A majority there voted 'Remain' and they weren't all nationalists.