Scottish independence

Peregrinus

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

Catalonia thought the same. Most countries are not going to get involved. The EU will take a neutral stance and the US will side with the UK. Scotland can not be compared to former British colonies. They were the British Empire. They won't get any sympathy from the former colonies unlike Ireland.

Ireland was, just as Scotland is, an integral part of the United Kingdom. If Scotland is part of the colonising power of the British Empire, rather than a colony, then so was Ireland.

But it doesn't matter. A majority of EU member states are countries which either broke away from a larger country of which they were formerly part (e.g. Hungary, Greece, Norway, Finland, Croatia) or escaped subjugation to a larger and more powerful country (e.g. the Netherlands, eastern Germany) or, in many cases, they have had both experiences (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia).

I think you're right that the EU won't interfere by recognising Scottish independence before it becomes an established fact (though I would point out that they did precisely that with Croatia) but, still, it does the UK huge damage to be perceived as a splintering country that hold itself together only by repudiating previously-accepted democratic principles. Westminster disputing the legitimacy of a Scottish referendum and refusing to accept the result buys them a bit of time to resolve the issue, but it also increases the political imperative to resolve it - they need to take steps to win back Scottish acceptance of the Union and so re-establish the legitimacy of the UK. Until that happens, they just look more and more like a failing, unreliable, undependable state. Which is not a good position to be in when, just after Brexit, you are trying to re-establish yourself as a credible, independent, effective player on the world stage.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do that. In 1933 Western Australia voted to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia, and become a self-governing dominion (like, say, New Zealand). There followed some years of political argument over whether this was within the grant of the UK parliament or whether the consent of the Australian parliament was required, and while that was happening the political conditions which gave rise to the demand for succession changed - the Great Depression eased, a Labor government (not in favour of secession) was elected in WA, and then the Second World War broke out and WA could suddenly see the advantages of being part of a larger community for common defence. Eventually the push for secession was quietly buried (though there was never a further referendum with a vote to remain in Australia).

OK, it was a long time ago and in a very different country, but the point stands. If Scotland decided to remain in 2014 and to leave in 2020, it could decide to remain again at a later date, and I think Westminster would need it to. That would require political conditions to change, and Westminster can't just assume that the international environment would change to its advantage. I think there would be a strong need to take domestic action to enable the Union to regain support in Scotland, by addressing the concerns which gave rise to the vote to leave. Simply ignoring the referndum as if it hadn't happened woudl certainly not tend to do that.

Sam Russell

One way Westminster could take the initiative would be to introduce devolved assemblies for the regions in England. If they had the same level of autonomy as Scotland has, then the idea that Westminster is the Parliament for the UK, but is also the devolved assembly for England would be dispelled.

It is the fact the the Tory party is basically an English Nationalist party and is disinterested in Scottish issues, and in particular is hostile to the SNP that heightens the issue.

If it was the Labour Party that was in power, there might be less of an issue. It was the Labour Party position in 2014 that led to the demise of Labour in Scotland.

bob mcbob

beggars_bush wrote: »

realistically, what can the SNP now do?

Wait

Let the despised Boris do his stuff !

CrabRevolution

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ireland was, just as Scotland is, an integral part of the United Kingdom. If Scotland is part of the colonising power of the British Empire, rather than a colony, then so was Ireland.

But it doesn't matter. A majority of EU member states are countries which either broke away from a larger country of which they were formerly part (e.g. Hungary, Greece, Norway, Finland, Croatia) or escaped subjugation to a larger and more powerful country (e.g. the Netherlands, eastern Germany) or, in many cases, they have had both experiences (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia).

I think you're right that the EU won't interfere by recognising Scottish independence before it becomes an established fact (though I would point out that they did precisely that with Croatia) but, still, it does the UK huge damage to be perceived as a splintering country that hold itself together only by repudiating previously-accepted democratic principles. Westminster disputing the legitimacy of a Scottish referendum and refusing to accept the result buys them a bit of time to resolve the issue, but it also increases the political imperative to resolve it - they need to take steps to win back Scottish acceptance of the Union and so re-establish the legitimacy of the UK. Until that happens, they just look more and more like a failing, unreliable, undependable state. Which is not a good position to be in when, just after Brexit, you are trying to re-establish yourself as a credible, independent, effective player on the world stage.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do that. In 1933 Western Australia voted to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia, and become a self-governing dominion (like, say, New Zealand). There followed some years of political argument over whether this was within the grant of the UK parliament or whether the consent of the Australian parliament was required, and while that was happening the political conditions which gave rise to the demand for succession changed - the Great Depression eased, a Labor government (not in favour of secession) was elected in WA, and then the Second World War broke out and WA could suddenly see the advantages of being part of a larger community for common defence. Eventually the push for secession was quietly buried (though there was never a further referendum with a vote to remain in Australia).

OK, it was a long time ago and in a very different country, but the point stands. If Scotland decided to remain in 2014 and to leave in 2020, it could decide to remain again at a later date, and I think Westminster would need it to. That would require political conditions to change, and Westminster can't just assume that the international environment would change to its advantage. I think there would be a strong need to take domestic action to enable the Union to regain support in Scotland, by addressing the concerns which gave rise to the vote to leave. Simply ignoring the referndum as if it hadn't happened woudl certainly not tend to do that.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare Scotland and Ireland's histories and struggles. Scotland has been a far more willing member of the UK (and by extention, the empire) than Ireland ever was. Ireland was a backwater to the UK in comparison to Scotland. There were innumerable Scottish political leaders in the UK, including several Prime Ministers, while I've never heard of any Irish MP having ever served in a UK ministry.

It's only recently that Scottish independence has gained mainstream support, but there has been a lot of revisionism (in Ireland and Scotland) that we've both in the same boat all along fighting identical causes.

For example, soon after the act of Union we had Daniel O'Connell fighting for Repeal and the restoration of the Irish Parliament. Scotland had no such campaign.

This evolved into the Home Rule party, which was formed in 1874 and within 10 years had won 86% of seats in Ireland (100% of seats in the 26 counties). Even then they only lost their dominance to an even stronger form of Irish nationalism in Sinn Féin.

In comparison, the SNP wasn't founded until 1934 (from 2 parties formed in the preceding 5 years), didn't gain a Westminister seat until the 1970s, and until 2015 averaged 5 seats (out of 72) per election.

In Ireland, as soon as Nationalism became an option it became the single dominant force in Irish politics. In Scotland they were happy to vote Unionist and Labour for decades. It's somewhat telling that there was no Scottish Conservative party until the 60s, instead they had the Unionist party who sat with the conservatives. The "Unionist" name was also in reference to their opposition to Irish home rule, not Scottish.

I also see it as telling that as long as there has been British rule in Ireland there have been legal and illegal groups fighting it. In Ireland this was regularly asserted through violent means, but there was no such fight in Scotland. Not to say either side was right or wrong, but to an impartial observer, the group motivated to fight and die for their cause probably want it more than the group who don't even push their cause.

I'm not opposing Scottish independence or saying it's wrong to change your mind, but it's wrong to say that ourselves and Scotland are 2 joint victims of England when Scotland were for a large part of history perfectly happy to join up with England.

Water John

AFAIK Sturgeon has said, she will not go the Catalonia route. Her objective is to persuade Westminister to allow a new referendum as circumstances have fundamentally changed since the last one, namely Brexit.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Tories have stated that they will not allow Scotland another vote even if it is demonstrated that the majority of people in Scotland want another vote

I think Sturgeon should bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum and see if it is contested in court then fight the court case. If Sturgeon loses the court case (as commentators predict) then this is the evidence that Scotland is not in a voluntary union. Fight the 2021 Scottish Parliament election on that basis and as a de facto independence referendum and declare independence if the pro-independence parties get over 50% of the vote

Waiting for the Tories to allow the people in Scotland a vote will not cut it

'The Conservatives will block an independence referendum for up to 50 years even if Scots continue to back nationalist parties at the ballot box, a Scotland Office minister has declared.

Douglas Ross, parliamentary under-secretary of state for Scotland, said the votes of the Scottish people and the Scottish parliament will not deliver independence.'

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/no-scottish-referendum-for-up-to-50-years-says-tory-minister-jn3vvxn6m

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories have stated that they will not allow Scotland another vote even if it is demonstrated that the majority of people in Scotland want another vote

I think Sturgeon should bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum and see if it is contested in court then fight the court case. If Sturgeon loses the court case (as commentators predict) then this is the evidence that Scotland is not in a voluntary union. Fight the 2021 Scottish Parliament election on that basis and as a de facto independence referendum and declare independence if the pro-independence parties get over 50% of the vote

Waiting for the Tories to allow the people in Scotland a vote will not cut it

'The Conservatives will block an independence referendum for up to 50 years even if Scots continue to back nationalist parties at the ballot box, a Scotland Office minister has declared.

Douglas Ross, parliamentary under-secretary of state for Scotland, said the votes of the Scottish people and the Scottish parliament will not deliver independence.'

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/no-scottish-referendum-for-up-to-50-years-says-tory-minister-jn3vvxn6m

That would make sense for Sturgeon to call such a a vote. It would really emphasize to Scotland where London stands in relation to the wishes and rights of the Scottish people. I think London continuing this hardline approach to Scotland is probably only going to drive more people in Scotland towards supporting independence.

Hawkeye9212

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ireland was, just as Scotland is, an integral part of the United Kingdom. If Scotland is part of the colonising power of the British Empire, rather than a colony, then so was Ireland.

Scotland wasn't conquered by England and forced into the union.

Peregrinus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare Scotland and Ireland's histories and struggles. Scotland has been a far more willing member of the UK (and by extention, the empire) than Ireland ever was. Ireland was a backwater to the UK in comparison to Scotland. There were innumerable Scottish political leaders in the UK, including several Prime Ministers, while I've never heard of any Irish MP having ever served in a UK ministry.

Two Prime Ministers, Lord Lansdowne and the Duke of Wellington, were born in Dublin, and many more served in UK ministries.

By contrast, seven Prime Ministers were born in Scotland but, interestingly, I think all (but one?) of them served after the two Irish-born PMs. From the early to mid-19th century onwards, Irish elections stopped sending Whig and Tory members to Westminster, and started sending members of the Irish Party, or unionists of various stripes who might be more or less aligned with the Whigs/Liberals or the Tories/Conservatives, but were always on the margins of those parties. And that probably has much to do with the fact that there were no further Irish PMs.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

It's only recently that Scottish independence has gained mainstream support, but there has been a lot of revisionism (in Ireland and Scotland) that we've both in the same boat all along fighting identical causes . . .

I'm not opposing Scottish independence or saying it's wrong to change your mind, but it's wrong to say that ourselves and Scotland are 2 joint victims of England when Scotland were for a large part of history perfectly happy to join up with England.

Obviously the histories of Irish and Scottish nationalism are very different; I haven’t suggested that they are the same. My point is more that the legal, constitutional and political position of Scotland within the UK is pretty much the same as that of Ireland was (except the Scotland has recently won devolution with the UK, which we never did). The notion that Scottish demands for self-determination will find no traction with an EU largely made of countries who owe their own existence to an assertion - sometimes by force - of the right of self-determination doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, given that Scotland’s objections to its current status are exactly the same as the objections that Ireland successfully made to the same status a hundred years ago.

We certainly haven’t “been in the same boat all along fighting identical causes”. But the boat Scotland is now in is similar in many ways to the boat we were in before 1922.

serfboard

Peregrinus wrote: »

the boat Scotland is now in is similar in many ways to the boat we were in before 1922.

Indeed. You only have to look at the enthusiasm with which crowds greeted both Queen Victoria (who visited in 1900) and George V (who visited in 1911) to see evidence of that.

And don't forget that the 1916 rising did not attract widespread support until the rebels were executed.

One of the resons that the rising didn't attract widespread support initially, was that Ireland's agrarian reform had been largely done by the time of the rising, whereas you could tongue-in-cheekily argue that Scotland's hasn't started yet, with vast estates being still owned by the crown and titled families. Not that that's something that the SNP are looking for, in fairness.

Sam Russell

serfboard wrote: »

Indeed. You only have to look at the enthusiasm with which crowds greeted both Queen Victoria (who visited in 1900) and George V (who visited in 1911) to see evidence of that.

And don't forget that the 1916 rising did not attract widespread support until the rebels were executed.

One of the resons that the rising didn't attract widespread support initially, was that Ireland's agrarian reform had been largely done by the time of the rising, whereas you could tongue-in-cheekily argue that Scotland's hasn't started yet, with vast estates being still owned by the crown and titled families. Not that that's something that the SNP are looking for, in fairness.

Agrarian reform is required throughout GB. Cornwall is owned, personally, by the Duke of Cornwall, aka the Prince of Wales. Most farms in GB are rented by the farmers, as was the case in Ireland before the land acts of the 19th century.

Perhaps the Labour Party should rely on that rather than the old chestnut - Nationalise the means of production.

Does the likes of the Prince of Wales pay inheritance tax when he gets the land?

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

Two Prime Ministers, Lord Lansdowne and the Duke of Wellington, were born in Dublin, and many more served in UK ministries.

Just a point of order, It was William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (aka 1st Marquess of Lansdowne)

just in case anyone wants to have a gander.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Agrarian reform is required throughout GB. Cornwall is owned, personally, by the Duke of Cornwall, aka the Prince of Wales.

Not quite.

The Duchy of Cornwall is an estate of landed property (plus some other investments) scattered across 23 English counties. Total area of the land owned by the estate is about 59,200 ha, of which only 7,700 ha are in the county of Cornwall. That represents just about 2% of the land area of Cornwall.

Not all of the land is agricultural land. The Estate also includes residential and commercial properties, forest, wilderness, etc. (Quite a lot of wilderness, in fact; much of Dartmoor belongs to the Duchy.)

The Prince of Wales doesn't own the estate personally; it attaches to the position of heir to the throne. This means that while Wales enjoys the income from the Duchy so long as he is heir to the throne, he has no right to sell its land and other assets; they have to be conserved and handed on to the next heir.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Most farms in GB are rented by the farmers, as was the case in Ireland before the land acts of the 19th century.

Perhaps the Labour Party should rely on that rather than the old chestnut - Nationalise the means of production.

The difference, of course, is that agricultural land is much less significant as a source of wealth in 21st-century Britain than it was in 19th-century Ireland. So, yeah, the UK might benefit from land reform, but don't expect it to lead to the kind of massive social and political change that it led to in Ireland.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does the likes of the Prince of Wales pay inheritance tax when he gets the land?

No. But he does (voluntarily) pay income tax on the income generated by the estate.

Mr.Nice Guy

Significant moment here. YouGov poll has Yes in the lead for the first time since 2015.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1222871376111054848

It's a narrow lead, but keeping in mind how unpopular Johnson is there, and the continued refusal by Westminster to countenance another referendum, there is scope for that number to grow.

darem93

Although in general I would have loved to have seen a major spike in support for independence after everything over the past 3 years, things are definitely moving in the right direction.

This is a great starting point for the Yes campaign, especially when you consider in 2014 support started out around 30% in the polls and moved up to 45% on polling day.

eire4

darem93 wrote: »

Although in general I would have loved to have seen a major spike in support for independence after everything over the past 3 years, things are definitely moving in the right direction.

This is a great starting point for the Yes campaign, especially when you consider in 2014 support started out around 30% in the polls and moved up to 45% on polling day.

Fair points and the behaviour of London toward Scotland is only likely to increase support for independence

serfboard

There was an SNP MSP (Alex Neil?), on Channel 4 News last night saying that in the wake of Brexit, Scotland would be better off advocating joining EFTA rather than the EU after independence, because joining the EU would necessitate a hard border between England and Scotland.

An interesting take, and not one that I’ve heard to date.

Capt'n Midnight

serfboard wrote: »

Scotland would be better off advocating joining EFTA rather than the EU after independence, because joining the EU would necessitate a hard border between England and Scotland.

An interesting take, and not one that I’ve heard to date.

The England-Scotland border has fewer crossings than the one in Ireland. So a hard border would be easier to do.

Joining the EFTA is a no brainer. It means Scotland can do what we did. Peg their currency to the pound for as long as almost all of their exports go to England. Having to adopt the Euro would be difficult.


EFTA would allow Scotland to export gas , oil , electricity , salmon and whisky on their terms.

EFTA as a stepping stone to EU membership later on , that's doable.

Charles Babbage

serfboard wrote: »

There was an SNP MSP (Alex Neil?), on Channel 4 News last night saying that in the wake of Brexit, Scotland would be better off advocating joining EFTA rather than the EU after independence, because joining the EU would necessitate a hard border between England and Scotland.

An interesting take, and not one that I’ve heard to date.

EFTA is a model which has become better known since Brexit.
Norway and Iceland would likely see Scotland as a potential partner and it would ease, but not eliminate, border issues and allow sensitive things like fisheries be kept.

breatheme

EFTA would also mean Free Movement of People, which Scots tend to favour.

A Dub in Glasgo

New poll out tonight by Panelbase

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1224464555151167489

Water John

There's an irony. Johnson won't recognise it as a majority.

Mr.Nice Guy

No one understands polls in Britain better than John Curtice and he's convinced the Union is now in jeopardy:

Sir John Curtice, of the University of Strathclyde, said the poll by Panelbase putting the yes vote at 52% confirmed a trend showing a gradual increase in support for leaving the UK, post-Brexit.

Three polls in the past five days had put the yes vote at 50% or higher. “The pursuit of Brexit is putting support for the union at risk, that’s the very clear lesson,” Curtice said.

“There is no guarantee that the trend will continue but what we do need to understand is that it is being driven by Brexit,” Curtis said. “[The] difficulty for the unionist position is that they say ‘we don’t think that the people of Scotland have the right to change their minds’.

“That won’t be sustainable if the trends we’re talking about go on much longer.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/04/scottish-independence-survey-shows-brexit-has-put-union-at-risk

The polls show strong support from those under the age of 50 so it seems like the direction of travel is only going one way. I think the Tory strategy of delaying the referendum is a short-sighted one that will backfire.

eire4

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

No one understands polls in Britain better than John Curtice and he's convinced the Union is now in jeopardy:



The polls show strong support from those under the age of 50 so it seems like the direction of travel is only going one way. I think the Tory strategy of delaying the referendum is a short-sighted one that will backfire.

I agree with you about the Tory position the more and more they drag their heels and say no to Scotland that will only increase support for independence IMHO.

eire4

jcullen222 wrote: »

Scotland should become an independent country. They have differing views to England/Wales and are a large enough nation to be successful as independent country.

A united Ireland and Scottish independence is the ultimate political dream for me.

I would say Brexit has made both of those happening in the next decade very possible.

Wheety

I would have thought that, because it involves moving away from English rule, they'd be supportive

serfboard

jcullen222 wrote: »

Is SF a party that supports Scottish independence? They’ve been vocal on Basque Country and Catalonia issues but I’ve never heard them state a position on Scotland.

They're not as vocal because

a) Scotland is already on the way to saying the long goodbye to England so it's not really necessary and

b) their support would only antagonise Rangers types and so it would not help.

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

They're not as vocal because

a) Scotland is already on the way to saying the long goodbye to England so it's not really necessary and

b) their support would only antagonise Rangers types and so it would not help.

it isn't "Rangers types" (whatever that is).

It would polarise the entire debate and any association with the IRA would have a severely negative impact on the SNP.

Both parties know this, which is why there is no talk of "Sister parties" other than in the dreams of a few die hard republicans (which the SNP are not).

jcullen222

jcullen222 wrote: »

The SNP lads on George’s Square said SF were a sister party?

They were wrong.

jcullen222

jcullen222 wrote: »

How?

On another note, there is talk of renaming George’s Square ‘Independence Square’ or ‘Freedom Square’ as the current name is an English creation.

They were wrong in that the SNP and Sinn Fein are not sister parties.

In what way is the square’s name an English creation?