Second Scottish Independence Referendum

[GusB]

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.

Which law?

 

[Bevan Price]

It is only a couple of years since the last referendum. Why should Westminstrer agree to another ?

Does SNP expect to be allowed referendums (referenda ?) every few years until it (may) get the result it wants ??

Rest of UK is easily the largest customer for "exports" from Scotland. Has SNP considered that Rest of UK may have to impose import duties on Scottish products if they (Scotland) are outside UK and manage to get admitted into EU ? And have SNP considered what happens if an independent Scotland was refused entry into EU - it only takes one EU country to object - and such objections are likely to come from countries (e.g. Spain) that are already concerned by their own internal separatist movements.

 

[Domh245]

It is only a couple of years since the last referendum. Why should Westminstrer agree to another ?

Does SNP expect to be allowed referendums (referenda ?) every few years until it (may) get the result it wants ??

Quite a bit has happened politically since 2014...

 

[RichmondCommu]

I hope that the Scots vote for independence. The SNP won't give up until they get what they want and to be absolutely frank I'm bored of it.

 

[Trog]

Which law?

1669 Act for annexation of Orkney and Shetland to the Crown.

 

[Barn]

I would hate to see Scotland leave the Union, but I do think the Union requires significant reform to remain viable in the long-term.

The current situation in which most day-to-day decisions are devolved to the nations means that Westminster spends a lot of its time dealing with English issues - the English NHS, the English education system, the English prison system, etc.

This means that Westminster has become the de facto parliament of England, and the UK government is the de facto government of England. It is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine another Scottish prime minister, health secretary, education secretary, home secretary, etc. How and why would they be appointed, when most of their decisions only affect another nation?

However, Westminster and the UK Government do of course have very important powers in reserved matters, including most taxation and all of defence and (crucially) foreign affairs. But the situation I describe above means that these issues are decided, almost ex officio, by the ruling politicians in England.

We need somehow to carve out English decisions away from Union ones and to restore the connection felt by Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish voters with the Union institutions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A federal U.K. I think would give the best hope.

 

[me123]

1669 Act for annexation of Orkney and Shetland to the Crown.

Interesting to see how this would hold up today, given that:
1) It was passed by an independent Scottish Parliament prior to the Act of Union
2) It relates to the Crown of Scotland, prior to it's union with the Crown of England.

I suspect it wouldn't hold up. And even if it did, it would be relatively easy to overcome with a simple clause establishing Orkney and Shetland as a part of the new independent Scotland (as it would be in the event of a yes vote).

 

[Railops]

I hope that the Scots vote for independence. The SNP won't give up until they get what they want and to be absolutely frank I'm bored of it.

So am I, really bored, they're so insignificant in the grand scheme of things but think they're so important that the EU will be falling over themselves to re-admit them and leapfrog the others in the queue.

It ain't going to happen, they could be 30 years waiting. Turkey has been waiting 30 years and Croatia 14 and Scotland will be behind them and another 6 countries.

 

[EM2]

Let's go the whole hog.
London, Kent, Essex, Sussex, Wessex, Cornwall, Mercia, Northumbria, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (if they don't unify with the Republic)

 

[Railops]

If the English had a referendum on divorcing from NI and Scotland it would be overwhelmingly yes, the Welsh would be 50/50.

 

[Trog]

Interesting to see how this would hold up today, given that:
1) It was passed by an independent Scottish Parliament prior to the Act of Union
2) It relates to the Crown of Scotland, prior to it's union with the Crown of England.

I suspect it wouldn't hold up. And even if it did, it would be relatively easy to overcome with a simple clause establishing Orkney and Shetland as a part of the new independent Scotland (as it would be in the event of a yes vote).

1) The Act was passed as part of the run up to the Act of Union, and is about what should happen if the Act of Union was dissolved so the event of the Act of union should not affect it.

2) The Union of the Crowns was 24 March 1603, so only a single monarch in 1669.

As for changing it they thought of that and the Scottish Parliament as part of this act gave up the power to change it.

 

[meridian2]

I hope that the Scots vote for independence. The SNP won't give up until they get what they want and to be absolutely frank I'm bored of it.

I agree, it'll happen this time, or next time or the one after that, and like going to a dentist to have a tooth pulled, it's better to book an appointment and get on with the extraction than waggling it to and fro and hoping the problem will go away. I'd 60/40 prefer Scotland to stay but only for sentimental reasons, and if the sentiment isn't shared that's fine by me. Incidentally the GDP of Yorkshire is greater than Scotland. And no, I wouldn't like Yorkshire to declare UDI.

 

[EM2]

If the English had a referendum on divorcing from NI and Scotland it would be overwhelmingly yes, the Welsh would be 50/50.

Evidence?

 

[radamfi]

In 2014, the UK told Scots to stay in the UK in order to stay in the EU.

 

[RichmondCommu]

In 2014, the UK told Scots to stay in the UK in order to stay in the EU.

How long would it take for the Scots to join the EU if they voted for independence?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

It is only a couple of years since the last referendum. Why should Westminstrer agree to another ?

Does SNP expect to be allowed referendums (referenda ?) every few years until it (may) get the result it wants ??

Thinking about it, I think the SNP could suffer for not putting a clause in the last referendum about date to hold another.

They should have agreed to no other referendum in 20 years (a generation), except in the case of major political change to the status of the UK, such as leaving the EU.

Given that no-one really expected the Brexit vote back in 2014 it would have seemed reasonable and the referendum now would be seen as a legal requirement, rather than the SNP just whining because they lost last time.

As it is, I think a lot of middle-of-the-road Scots will see the SNP as being too focused on referenda and not with running the country, which will cost them at the ballot box and the referendum.

 

[me123]

1) The Act was passed as part of the run up to the Act of Union, and is about what should happen if the Act of Union was dissolved so the event of the Act of union should not affect it.

2) The Union of the Crowns was 24 March 1603, so only a single monarch in 1669.

As for changing it they thought of that and the Scottish Parliament as part of this act gave up the power to change it.

Fair enough on Point 2, got my dates mixed up (it's been a long day!).

But, it's hard to argue that such a small print point of law from 1669 is going to be a huge barrier to anything. As I've already said, it would only take a simple line in the Scottish Independence bill to rectify. All that would need to be said is that Orkney and Shetland shall be within the domain of the new nation of Scotland.

In 2014, the UK told Scots to stay in the UK in order to stay in the EU.

This is absolutely true. Probably one of the biggest arguments from the "No" camp in the 2014 referendum was that voting for independence put our EU membership at stake. It is now evident that voting against independence has done exactly that. I don't have statistics regarding the voting patterns of EU citizens resident in Scotland, but I think it is plausible that they may have been more likely to vote "No" last time in order to secure their place in the EU, but may be more likely to vote "Yes" this time for exactly the same reason.

 

[radamfi]

How long would it take for the Scots to join the EU if they voted for independence?

Probably less than if they stay with the UK. First of all they would have to wait for the UK to apply to rejoin the EU, which may never happen, and then there would be the queuing time after that.

 

[Trog]

But, it's hard to argue that such a small print point of law from 1669 is going to be a huge barrier to anything. As I've already said, it would only take a simple line in the Scottish Independence bill to rectify. All that would need to be said is that Orkney and Shetland shall be within the domain of the new nation of Scotland.

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.

There is also an international treaty angle to this in that the 1669 act is a result of the Treaty of Breda (1667) at which it was agreed that talks on the status of Orkney and Shetland would take place at a future date. Hence why they were excluded from the Act of Union, as anything that joined them directly to the nation states of Scotland or England would affect those talks. So they were attached to the crown directly and forever as dependencies instead.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The inbred and traditional hatred of the English is behind this and will cloud the judgement of more realistic Scots who may well help the vote over the line, let's hope so.

It looks like you may need a new mirror.

 

[me123]

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.

There is also an international treaty angle to this in that the 1669 act is a result of the Treaty of Breda (1667) at which it was agreed that talks on the status of Orkney and Shetland would take place at a future date. Hence why they were excluded from the Act of Union, as anything that joined them directly to the nation states of Scotland or England would affect those talks. So they were attached to the crown directly and forever as dependencies instead.

rUK probably wouldn't make a big deal over something like this. Following a (hypothetical, at present) vote to leave the UK, Westminster would prepare to enact the legislation that would make us an independent country. That will happen regardless of how the parliament feels, as they won't go against the will of the Scottish electorate. The franchise that would vote for independence would include residents of Orkney and Shetland, and as such I think it would be reasonable to assume that they would come with us.

Perhaps Orkney and/or Shetland may want to remain with rUK, but even if they vote "No" in the upcoming referendum I find that highly unlikely in that they are very closely tied to Scotland (for example, their tertiary level healthcare is primarily delivered from Aberdeen, they are subject to Scots Law, the islands have no existing transport links to any part of the UK outwith Scotland...).

Even with the 1669 act on the books, it would be hard to imagine a situation where Orcadians and Shetlanders won't become part of a new independent Scotland.

 

[meridian2]

Even with the 1669 act on the books, it would be hard to imagine a situation where Orcadians and Shetlanders won't become part of a new independent Scotland.

If we can hang onto some islands in the South Atlantic off the coast of Argentina, Orkney and Shetland will be a sinch.

 

[radamfi]

Sturgeon was willing to put aside a referendum request as long as the UK went for soft Brexit.

 

[Trog]

The franchise that would vote for independence would include residents of Orkney and Shetland, and as such I think it would be reasonable to assume that they would come with us.

Interesting as the franchise that voted for Brexit included Scotland, and as such I think it would be reasonable to assume that they would come with us.

 

[Trog]

If we can hang onto some islands in the South Atlantic off the coast of Argentina, Orkney and Shetland will be a sinch.

That was quite amusing, by the way how slong is a sinch?

 

[me123]

If we can hang onto some islands in the South Atlantic off the coast of Argentina, Orkney and Shetland will be a sinch.

In 2013, on a 92% turnout, 99.8% votes cast in a referendum in the Falklands supported the status quo. Only three voters voted against the motion. I highly doubt that either Orkney or Shetland would have anything like the same mandate. Whilst both sets of islands voted to remain in the UK in 2014 (being amongst the most pro-union parts of Scotland at the time), the prospect of those islands choosing to remain with rUK in the event of Scottish independence is very different for the reasons I've already outlined. Even if they wanted to stay in the UK, I can't imagine the islanders voting subsequently to leave an independent Scotland.

If it's such a big issue now in March 2017, why was this not a massive issue in the run-up to the 2014 referendum? After all, the Orcadians and Shetlanders voted in the knowledge (belief?) that a Yes vote would have taken them out of the UK and joined them to an independent Scotland. No-one seriously raised the prospect at that time that the islands would remain with rUK, or exist as down dependencies (minor movements for island nationalism aside).

Interesting as the franchise that voted for Brexit included Scotland, and as such I think it would be reasonable to assume that they would come with us.

As we are doing. Scotland will leave the EU before it becomes an independent country in the event of a "Yes" vote in due course. That's unavoidable. There will be a subsequent referendum due to the material change in circumstances since the last one (see the pages of propaganda from the No camp relating to EU membership). The Shetlanders and Orcadians are more than welcome to have a referendum of their own if they want to as far as I'm concerned.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I won't be voting for independence; there's far too much to lose. (I'd have my membership of railforums uk cancelled).

 

[Hornet]

Only a third of Scottish voters bothered to vote in the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the EU from the Scots.

TURNOUT
As Figure 4 shows, turnout in 2014 increased by 4.9% compared with 2009 – from 28.6% to
33.5%. The increased turnout for the 2014 election was a contributory factor in 5 of the 6 main
parties recording an increase in the number of votes they received – even where their share of
the vote remained relatively stable.

http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_14-38.pdf

UK turnout as a whole was 35.4%.

2.2 Turnout
By convention, turnout is measured as the number of valid votes expressed as a proportion
of the electorate on polling day. Across the whole of the UK, turnout was 35.4%. This was
slightly higher than 34.5% in 2009, but lower than 38.4% in 2004, when all-postal ballots
were held in the four northernmost regions of England. The chart below shows turnout and
the change in turnout by region in 2014.

Chart is on page 14 of the report in the link.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP14-32
file:///C:/Users/Pc/Downloads/RP14-32.pdf

 

[RichmondCommu]

Sturgeon was willing to put aside a referendum request as long as the UK went for soft Brexit.

Really? Do you have any evidence of that? Within three hours of the Brexit result being declared Nicola Sturgeon was on the radio suggesting that a second referendum was very much on the cards.